Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faeids

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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faeids

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, possible original research; article is reliant on sources associated with the subject and the coining or appropriation of the term (refs to Tolkien and Bradley are peripheral to core of subject). Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/query - do you think its worth merging somewhere into Fairy? Stalwart111 (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Possibly, although I'm not sure if even a mention there would be sufficiently notable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right. Either way, with regard to this particular article, I'm in favour of Delete. (Stalwart111 (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Seldom do I get such a disparate set of GHits: books gets a bunch of odd, unrelated-to-each-other cites, while news gives typos and a few hits of one or more Mr. Faeids. All the hits are on websites, and they all seem to be in-universe, as it were. It's suspicious that all the references fail to include URLs even though the only meaningful ones appear to be web citations. I'm pretty sure we're being used to promote someone's interesting novel idea. Mangoe (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google Books and Google Scholar did not produce conclusive results.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "known as faerie knowers"? This may be clearly original research, and if not, the designation is not notable enough or broad anough to deserve an article. — ΛΧΣ21™ 06:19, 12 September 2012 (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.

To whom it may concern; Apparently you are the individual who deleted an article on wikipedia i used for a college research paper and now my professor is giving me issue with it because she can't check my references. Please help. I need the content from this article. I actually interviewed some of the faeids that are part of the community that was written about and their web site is currently down so wanted to re-read the references in the article. Is it archived somewhere? why was this deleted. I am a ethnographer in an anthropology course doing research on these people. You killed my gateway into this obscure alternative community. Please help. Thanks greatly. Jamie Ralston — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.34.80.88 (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]