Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whers

Whers

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 "Whers" 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. Them From Space 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while not as notable as Fire lizards, I was able to find a mention of them in Anne McCaffrey: A Life with Dragons by Robin Roberts ISBN 9781578069989 (http://books.google.com/books?id=MS4BHeqNpf8C&pg=PA211&vq=whers). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT as well as all three of Wikipedia's core content polices. There are no reliable sources to verify its content which is filled with opinion about these fictional creatures that is pure original research. This article is basically a content folk, as it provides no real world commentary, criticism, context or analysis that is not already contained in the article Dragonriders of Pern. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[1], [2] are both reasonable references. weak keep with a preference to merge this into Pern or a similar article. Hobit (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added the review above to the article. I believe its more than just passing mention, but enough information to count as media coverage. And this is a notable aspect of a notable series, they used for various reasons throughout different novels. Dream Focus 11:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two sources mentioned do not, imo, in depth coverage of the subject. Rather they are reviewing the book in which they appear. Just because the creatures are mentioned does not mean an article is warranted. The context of both sources is regarding Dragon's Kin, which already mentions the creatures. Plot details and so on (which I am not against per se) would be more suitable in the article on the book, not a sub-article like this. Quantpole (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources providing substantive coverage of the article subject, that I was able to find anyway. HiDrNick! 19:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The "topic" Dragonriders of Pern is already well established as notable. This current article is not a content fork, as it is simply additonal informations whose inclusion would overburden the parent article, making it a proper "spinout" per WP:WAF... which specifically states "when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article" and more importantly "usually rely on the coverage of the parent topic, and may lack demonstration of real-world coverage through sources dedicated specifically to those elements" Guideline allows that such spinouts may depend on the parent for their notability. Per guideline, it need not be forced to show it seperately. The spinout passes WP:V and WP:N through correct interpretation of WP:WAF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

The topiic of this article is Whers; as that's the subject. Subjects can only be spun-out if they themselves are notable apart from the parent topic. Notability is not inherited. WP:WAF forbids in-universe plot summaries, which is all that this article is. There is no out-of-universe material to build a verifiable article from. Them From Space 20:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the 'parent' topic isn't Dragonriders of Pern, it is Dragon's Kin, which is certainly not overloaded with information. That book is the principal one in which the creatures are involved. The book is also what the sources are talking about. Since we are into quoting from WP:WAF, how about Very rarely should such spinout articles be about a singular topic (e.g., character, plot item); either that topic has demonstrated its own notability, or should be merged into the main article or existing spinout articles. Quantpole (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official website of the author, they are featured in more than just that one book. The series is parent article, not the book. Dream Focus 22:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if can be moved to inline citation. Character plot summaries are a staple of Wikipedia, and they are always poorly referenced. for instance the Simpsons characters all have references that are the individual episodes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge after clarifying it , so someone not intimately familiar with the novels will know where it fits. Not rally important enough for a separate article. there is a much higher priority with the Pern articles than these: rewriting the basic ones on the individual novels so they five a clearer view of the plot, and a fuller description of the characters where they matter. Whatever we want to say is the proper fullness for coverage, what we do say should be done right and clearly, so as to be useful for outsiders and casual readers. I don'tcare a bit whether or not we combine these articles, as long as we do them better. I like to think that its the low quality which helps feed the discontent with them, not the inherent view othat important ficitonal topics are unsuitable. DGG (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]