Deletion of Khitai (Conan)

Comment: for a topic to have its own article, its |notability in "the world at large" must be proven, and we measure that notability with the |General Notability Guideline, which states that the topic must have received "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". For articles on elements of fiction, the policy (OTPLOT) is that they must not be "summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary". In other words, the focus of article should not be the fiction itself ie |primary information (as it is in the Khitai article), but on its |real world aspects through #Secondary Information|secondary information such as its development and creation, its reception among the public and critics and its hypothetical influence, as discussed in a sufficient number of independent sources. The current article, as noted by its creator, does not contain any coverage of this kind nor any independent source, and a search in Google Books and Google Scholar didn't bring any signficant result besides primary sources, showing the topic is not likely to ever be notable and thus to deserve its own article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:GNG||WP:NOTPLOT||WP:PASI||WP:PASI||WP:real world)

Comment: Wikia has some wikis where in-universe adulation is encouraged, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where topics have to satisfy . There is no indication that this topic has received significant coverage in independent secondary sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: does not meet the |general notability guideline, has no |reliable sources and written from an |in-universe perspective
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:WAF)