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 keep. — Aitias // discussion 00:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weyr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is primarily original research which can not be fixed since I have found no adequate sources that discuss this. Under our verifiability policy, Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A google search, and a google news search each show a lack of the reliable sources needed to back up the article.

Furthermore, the topic "Weyr" doesn't meet our notability guidelines as it has not been significantly commented upon in reliable, third-party sources. Without this we cannot ascertain the significance of the subject matter. This follows from WP:V as it's impossible to have a notable article on a topic which can not be verified.

In accordance with our deletion policy, this article should be deleted because it is an article for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify it has failed, it is an article whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline, and it is an article with only content not suitable for an encyclopedia (see WP:NOT#OR, and WP:IINFO)

To summarise, this article should be deleted as the topic doesn't meet WP:N and the content shouldn't be merged anywhere unless it has been verified through reliable sources. ThemFromSpace 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be fine with an upmerge to the main Pern article. Contrary to the nominator's assertion, there is material here suitable for a merge, as we can make limited use of primary sources when it comes to fictional elements. Powers ^T 22:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- this cruft is everything Wikipedia shouldn't be. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and consider possible merging. But the nom has completely ignored the possibility that there might be printed sources. Which is really odd, because if one follows the link to the author, one finds there have been a number of books--let alone other criticism--written about her fiction, including several academic works. BEFORE does not mean the sort of parody-search of looking blindly in Google. a blind search, giving 512,000 hits in google, either needs thinking about, or look beyond the first page before one concludes there are no adequate sources. GNews search is good for finding book reviews, but not comments and discussions of a book. A truly reckless set of nomination of the elements of a major work. I;'m not saying this group of articles is done well--they are not; the articles about the individual books also are very scanty indeed and need very considerable expansion. They do not talk enough about the plot to provide a background for critical discussions. The thing to do is to improve them and merge as needed, not delete. Of course, that takes work, and this sort of nomination doesn't. Removing the poor articles does not improve WP as much as upgrading them does. DGG (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything here that isn't original research? Original research must be removed and a removal of it will leave a blank article. If you want to rewrite the article than be my guest but articles that need a full rewrite to be encyclopedic should be deleted if nobody is going to put up the effort to do so. ThemFromSpace 02:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt most of it is original research; I bet the majority of it could be sourced to the Pern novels. Powers ^T 12:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading a novel and then choosing an element of it to handle in a largely in-universe fashion is original research. Cheese is not sourced to your refridgerator. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not remotely what original research means, and I can make no sense of your second sentence. Apologies. Powers ^T 12:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Okay, I had to make my searches very specific in order to cut the number of hits down, but here you go: 22 Google scholar hits and 184 Google book hits. That's 184 books—none of which are by anyone named McCaffrey—that mention weyrs in the context of McCaffrey's works. Can we agree that there's a plethora of sources to use in writing an article? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Did you bother to look at the 101 cites at Google Scholar for Weyr + dragon? Bearian (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you? I got about four pages in, and saw 95% Anne McCaffrey's own writing, interspersed with occasional papers that mentioned the premise of one or several of her books in passing. Nothing useful as a source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This is, btw, why my Scholar and Book links above showed the searches without books written by McCaffrey. Fewer results, yes, but all are solid. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:42, 1 June 2009 (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.