Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werel (Alterra)

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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Werel (Alterra)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not establish notability independent of Hainish Cycle through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is useful background. I am puzzled at the determination of some people to throw away useful data.

Oh, and it is just one of many. Lots more should go if this one does. --GwydionM (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Planets of the Hainish Cycle#Werel / Alterra. Even though one has to take care to separate out discussion of the subject from that of the other planet Werel in Le Guin's fiction, I fairly easily found one book with some detailed discussion of the subject and other critical works (this, for instance) which give the subject somewhat more than a passing mention. I have added citations to both of these to the article. However, while the subject is definitely mentioned enough in critical works and other reliable sources to make advisable some informative coverage of it on Wikipedia and while there is probably just about enough notability for a standalone article, it would probably be best to use material from the lead and "History" sections here to expand the suggested target rather than maintain a short standalone article. Unfortunately, while the "Science" section is certainly useful and probably accurate, I can't find any sources for the scientific information in discussions on Le Guin - it therefore probably constitutes synthesis which can't be used on Wikipedia. But I would be very pleased if the article creator or anyone else could supply suitable sources. Finally, I was rather irritated by the stereotyped nomination statement, which the nominator seems to have used with only minor changes on about 500 AfDs. When, as in this case, items important to a series' plot have some discussion in critical works and are therefore likely to become search items here, we should, where it exists, have some verifiable information on them. I get the impression (hopefully wrong) that, unless reliable sources are already in an article, the nominator simply assumes that they do not exist and does at most a very cursory search for sources. And the implicit demand for a "current assertion for future improvement of the article" seems curious as, particularly since the deprecation of Template:Expand, I can see no legitimate way of making such an assertion in a mainspace article. PWilkinson (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nominator's inclusion at this list. --173.241.225.165 (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above IP's sole contribution to Wikipedia has been spamming multiple links to the above unreliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is an extensive body of critical discussion of Le Guin's work, and the nominator has acknowledged making no effort to determine whether the claims in their nomination statement are accurate, GBooks/GScholar search produces enough pertinent results to indicate those claims are unfounded. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2014 (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.