Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperpanofiction

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. Michig (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperpanofiction

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not pass WP:NEO. Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A neologism only used by its coiner. A PROD was declined in 2007 by the article creator with "wait for more references"; we have waited long enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yikes, this was allowed to linger for far too long. As far as I can tell, it's just WP:MADEUP. The 2000 Hawaii "World Autonomous Control Conference" where the concept was apparently initially presented doesn't appear to have left any meaningful online record of its existence, if it was actually an event. The book cited is real, but is not an independent source, and may very well be self-published (I can find no record of a Decision Intelligence Group book publisher in Australia; this business by the same name is unrelated). Zero coverage in reliable, independent sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We have waited long enough. -- Paleorthid (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is nothing on Google Search, Google Books, WorldCat, JSTOR or even unreliable sources on message boards to suggest this exists. This probably should be put in Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. SITH (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2019 (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.