Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolves of Fortune

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable short stories, prod removed by author Wildthing61476 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mr Stephen 18:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 18:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete per nom.

• Why is my article listed for deletion? Could you please advise me of this before erasing it? This is an article on a series of stories I have written, they are original material and are not copyrighted by any fashion, the article had a descent length and I hope to expand on it further in the future. Please tell me what's wrong with it so I may correct this? I checked my main page and found the notice about solicitation which this is not, it is a reference for any who wish to read my stories, and it will be incredibly disheartening to have my hard work of putting this up deleted without discussing it. Please keep my article up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrifterTWolf (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 July 2006.
• Comment: well that explains it right there. Wikipedia is not a place for Orginal Research. Sorry. SynergeticMaggot 19:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and response to above comment - The problem is that the information is not verified (which is the absolute #1 requirement of Wikipedia), and that there's no reason to believe that these stories are important. If they're widely recognized as important, where are the critics with commentary on your work? Where are the Amazon sales ranks for paper-published versions- or, failing that, the huge number of Google hits for electronic-published versions? Until there are enough sources available that we can discuss it from a Neutral Point of View, there's no way we can have it on the Wikipedia. I would recommend moving this information offsite to, say, Geocities, or to the furry Wiki on Wikia (the name of it escapes me). For that matter, we are discussing why it should be deleted- that's the purpose of AfD. Captainktainer * Talk 19:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom — WP:OR failing WP:N, WP:FICTION, WP:RS, and WP:V. -- Alias Flood 19:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete self-published fan fiction does not belong on this website. Danny Lilithborne 01:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Alias Flood and Captainktainer. The article itself admits that the stories are not well known, which should be sufficient cause, even ignoring the vanity aspects. Paddles ^T_C 14:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to WikiFur. not notable enough for Wikipedia, but should be fine for WikiFur. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give Wikifur more credit than that - not sure they will let it in given that the article itself states:"At this time there have been no art or writing contributions to this series as it is not well known." Bwithh 07:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteas per nom. Bwithh 07:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.