Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pon farr

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 although in the last half of the discussion it was leaning towards keep There were no discussion over the last 48 + hours, but some have suggested a merge, you can continue the discussion on the talk page--JForget 00:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pon farr

This minor fictional topic has no real world notability asserted Ejfetters 03:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total fancruft, written in-universe and with no indication of real-world relevance, no references apart from a couple of fan sites, need I go on? --Closedmouth 03:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally not notable in our universe, poor references, and (though I admittedly know nothing of Star Trek) seems quite a minor subject. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 03:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content can be merged elsewhere if desired. JJL 04:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I don't know where, but it should be merged and redirected. The lack of third party, reliable sources is important to note, however this is a notable part of Star Trek.. - Rjd0060 04:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Vulcan (Star Trek)#Pon farr, which is almost as lengthy. This is probably one of the most well-known "alien" things from Trek, but real-world notability is limited. --Dhartung | Talk 04:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheepish keep following vast improvement by Uncle G. --Dhartung | Talk 13:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Vulcan (Star Trek)#Pon farr per Dhartung --Brewcrewer 05:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as suggested. Collectonian 05:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian 05:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. This is notable for trekies, but doesn't belong on its own. A section in the Vulcan article is more than sufficient. will381796 05:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easily sourced. Easily written. Capable of becoming more than a stub. Shame on all of the above editors who made zero effort to look for what sources exist, or to see what "real world relevance" the sources document. Such an approach neither helps the AFD process nor helps to write the encyclopaedia. Keep. Uncle G 06:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not notable in its own, not enough "real-world" information to help it stand on its own, better merged, and trimmed down. Ejfetters 06:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are here to write an encyclopaedia, not to erase one. The idea that well-sourced content should be "trimmed down" is exactly wrong. So, too, is your notion of evaluating how much "real world information" there is on a subject by expending zero effort to look for sources and read them. At AFD you are expected to pull your finger out and look for sources yourself. And this subject clearly satisfies the PNC on its own. Note how Colonel Warden has done things properly and expended the effort to look for sources xyrself, below. You should not be surprised when the closing administrator gives more weight to the opinions of editors who clearly have made the effort to do some actual research to see what sources exist, how many of them there are, and how in-depth they are. I cited the ones that I found in the article, thereby improving the encyclopaedia at the same time. Uncle G 11:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So THAT's what we're here for. Please allow us to stay here another day, we beg your forgiveness. Mandsford 16:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Scholar points to several more references as one can readily see. Other relevant articles are Sexuality in Star Trek and Amok Time. The page might become a redirect to one of these but it already seems substantial enough to stand by itself. Colonel Warden 08:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per above; minor aspect of the Vulcans, which are a minor aspect of Star Trek. Nowhere near notable enough. - Chardish 17:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge When I first saw this AfD it sounded as ridiculous as the idea of deleting the article on the Borg. (Does WP have a term for that reaction? It's almost WP:SNOW but not quite b/c WP:SNOW requires consensus.) However, I will admit there may be an argument for Merge, but asking for Delete is just a bit much. Vulcans are probably the most widely recognized alien species on Star Trek, so you can't really call them a minor aspect of Star Trek. And when describing Vulcans, Pan Farr comes right after their commitment to logic and what planet they live on. So the info needs to be somewhere on Wikipedia, thus either keep or merge. Mdmkolbe 19:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but

Keep notable enough to be parodied (Comic_Book_Guy#Romance). Do people actually check incoming links before they go on an AFD spree? Agathoclea 20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements and significance on the topic. I can't disagree with Uncle G's comments above. --Kizor 21:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has some solid sourcing, and nice job in digging it up. Keep Tony Fox (arf!) 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian 00:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason the article can't be merged to the Vulcan article, preserving most of the article then. Ejfetters 00:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kizor, WP:HEY. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Kizor. --Goobergunch|? 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Vulcan (Star Trek) article. Pon farr has no relevance outside the Star Trek universe. Lwnf360 09:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per external sourcing: as at least one WP:RS has applied it as metaphor for external society, should not be merged.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete into Vulcan (Star Trek) article. In fact the Vulcan article is more than sufficient already to cover this material (almost verbatum). So delete would be fine. Note: If it is decided to keep, then the Vulcan section on the subject should be reduced drastically.Bytebear (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many ST topics have enough coverage even outside of ST to be notable to the rest of the world. --David Reiss (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article as written includes copious real-world data and references. Notability is firmly established. Powers ^T 14:46, 7 December 2007 (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.