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. The current article has sourced commentary whose deletion would be a detriment to wikipedia, and Rename is a variation of Keep. In particular, since the franchise does not have a series article yet, I will also go ahead and Rename the current article to Well World series, which would have been my recommendation if I had participated in the AfD. Such a rename allows for more fictional material (balanced with real-world information) to be added to this franchise's wikipedia coverage without having to create new articles for such. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well World

[edit]

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

No real world notability shown. No sources other than the fiction books it was created for. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real world references are required? What about Pern or Stargates? Both of them are only (or primarily) referenced in fictional material. Well World simply had the unfortunate lot to have been written in the 1970s, before the internet, and being niche science fiction it never achieved the public awareness of other literature (such as the Lord of the Rings) and as such was never referenced outside of its own novels. If anything is to be done with this page, merge it with something. --Draco18s (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now has 3 independent, non-trivial RS, demonstrating that the GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Well World series and shift emphasis a bit. It's a successful enough series to merit an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Well World series if there is anything to say about it besides plot summaries, otherwise merge to Jack L. Chalker#The Saga of the Well World series and develop this section. No significant coverage to warrant a whole article on the fictional world itself.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOWFLAKE, it has a sourced analysis section that meets wp:GNG. Diego (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't have any analysis that would meet WP:GNG (did you miss the part about "significant coverage, in detail and not trivial mentions") ? And since when essays are valid justification for conservation ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2012 (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.