Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerin oil

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 redirect to Richard Dawkins. Consensus is that this is not independently notable. Content can be merged from the history; if that is not done, an RfD might be in order. Sandstein 09:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerin oil

[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)

Article refers to a parody essay that was published in an unreliable source and otherwise received a brief burst of attention before disappearing. Whatever coverage it attracted was really more about atheism and criticism of atheism as a whole, and did not provide significant coverage of "gerin oil" as a stand-alone topic. Nor is the comparison between religion and drugs a novel concept, having already been covered substantially at opium of the people. There is nothing in the sources to support a separate article about the "Gerin Oil" essay and a reaction to it, nor has this parody invoked received lasting reception to meet the WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence the subject passes WP:FICTION, all evidence it is WP:FANCRUFT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What exactly is your definition of "fancruft"? I am not seeing it from the article. Haleth (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard Dawkins. Clearly not notable. A real, honest-to-FSM relic of what kind of stuff passed muster on Wikipedia in 2005, isn't it? Look how far we've come! jp×g 05:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge contents to Richard Dawkins, whose article surprisingly has no mention of this at all. WP:Before reveal discussions of this topic from a few reliable sources from the 2000's, so it is a notable publicity stunt by Dawkins as a satire-tinged criticism of religion, but not a notable topic in itself that warrants a standalone article. Haleth (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2020 (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.