Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benden Weyr


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Benden Weyr

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (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 "Benden 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, 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.  Them From  Space  20:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  —TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. There does not appear to be independent coverage of this topic, so it fails the WP:GNG.  It is also written almost entirely in-universe with no real-world information.  I don't see the article as salvageable. Karanacs (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as "fun craft".Tyrenon (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete awful cruft. A trivia section about something made up is the icing on the cake. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I assume the nom has not noticed there are books on this series of novels, cited in the article about the author. I might support an appropriate merge, even though there is probably quite  enough information, including secondary sources, to justify an article. DGG (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are books about Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling but not every building mentioned in the series is notable in its own right. Unless one can put up the sources that describe this topic in detail and show that an encyclopedic article can be written about it than there's no excuse for leaving original research and trivia to rot here.  Them  From  Space  02:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are also obscene numbers of books on Star Wars and Star Trek. Those series have gone through major article pullbacks in the past; I once read that there were a large number of Star Wars articles dumped in a short span of time.  Also, just because it's out there doesn't mean that it ought to be on here.Tyrenon (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: 5 Google scholar hits and 25 Google book hits means that there are plenty of sources on which to base an article. Is there a reason all of the Pern AFDs couldn't have been lumped together? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Google scholar hits appear to be only passing mentions. This doesn't satisfy the "significant coverage" aspect of the GNG. Karanacs (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why they weren't lumped together, but they would seem to qualify for a "batch nomination". Then again, my party nominations probably should have been batched together, but there were enough differences between them to justify separate noms IMHO (not to mention me still getting used to the controls here).  If I might ask, though, could someone give me a link to the other noms in here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrenon (talk • contribs) 14:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They have all been listed on the Fictional Elements and Science Fiction deletion sorting. The links are higher up in the debate, pretty much on their own lines. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment (to Karanacs): that wasn't the rationale for the AFD. The rationale was that there shouldn't be an article because there were "no adequate sources that discuss this." That's simply not true; the nominator just didn't seriously look for them BEFORE nominating. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources listed don't "discuss", they mention the topic. So yes, we can verify from those that the topic exists within the fictional work, but there appears to be no significant coverage (as the GNG requires) to establish that the topic is a notable piece of the fictional work.  Karanacs (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Evidently notable. There are obviously good alternatives to deletion in such cases and so these cookie cutter nominations fail WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.