Deletion of Treecat

Comment: Wikipedia isn't a fansite. It isn't a meta-fansite. Wikipedia is in all respects a discriminate encyclopedia, we don't let just anything on. We have rigourous guidelines of inclusion which work off of a definition of |notability which hasn't been met in this article. Per Wikipedia:DEL#REASON an article may be deleted if it doesn't meet the notability guidelines.  All of the points that the nominator brings up are valid and per |our deletion policy this article should be deleted because it doesn't meet the relevant notability guideline, and because the content is just not suitable for an encyclopedia as it fails , and .  If this would ever be appropriate for an encyclopedia it would have to be covered from an out-of-universe perspective looking in at the topic and analyizing its significance in the real world.  If this is impossible, which I highly suspect it is, the article doesn't belong here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:DEL||WP:PLOT||WP:WAF)

Comment: for lacking |notability through significant coverage from reliable sources.  Additionally, |Wikipedia is not a plot summary, since fictional topics should have real-world context.  There only exists one sentence of that here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:PLOT)

Comment: Can any of you demonstrate the |notability of the topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as pure fancruft. http://www.themousehole.org/treecat.html Stuffies notwithstanding,  requires significant coverage in independent |third-party sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PSTS)

Comment: Another editor beat me to making the same point at another AfD; I'll make it here: despite the ARS tags and several days at AfD, I don't see that anyone has offered up any sort of sourcing to establish notability for this topic. The closest would be the links above -- but, not really, since they just offer blurb summaries of various Honorverse books. Can anyone point toward a source that asserts just that understanding treecats is important to understanding Honorverse? Or a source that might actually meet the threshold of  offering third-party critical commentary
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as more excessive in-universe, -busting fancruft
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: completely fails , and per  that IS a valid reason to delete it. It also fails  and . The topic of "treecat" has not received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources and despite what some would like us to believe, Wikipedia IS still an encyclopedia, and NOT a fansite
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:DEL||WP:PLOT||WP:WAF)