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. --Core desat 05:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otter island (fictional)[edit]

Amateur fiction cruft. The article details a fictional world written in-universe that the creator seems to have just made up but Wikipedia is not for things you make up one day. This article has been around for over two years because it is a walled garden. The article is a fan construct so it has no reliable sources or verifiability, makes no claim of notability and seems to be orginal research. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service for people's fictional creations or an indiscriminate collection of information. NeoFreak 02:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, that's so cute! I love it. Unfortunately it doesn't belong here. :-( Delete. - ∅ (∅), 03:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per above I can't believe this has been around for 2 and half years and has been looked at and edited by multiple named editors but hasn't been brought to account until now.Bwithh 03:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as.... Mustelidcruft? Tubezone 04:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to have been made up one day, fails WP:V. MER-C 04:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per above, esp. Bwithh's comments. SkierRMH,09:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good god, how this be out there for so long? amateur fiction - delete as OR. --Charlesknight 13:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-I don't even think TV fictional places deserve an article, let alone this place that nobody has ever heard of. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 14:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it was of interest to anyone else there'd be references to it, private mythologies don't cut it here. Pete Fenelon 16:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike some of these topics, which simply suffer from poorly written articles that do not attempt to meet WP:V, this seems to stand no chance to do so even if motivated. Serpent's Choice 12:58, 11 December 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.