Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elder race

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. WP:HEY, sources were found to improve the article. RL0919 (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elder race

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No indication of any independent, reliable sources discussing the trope as a trope; lots of WP:USERGEN content is available, but nothing published that provides more than a passing mention. No sources cited in the article. An alternative might be to remove the current lede, move to List of elder races, and establish a clear standard for inclusion that could be laid out in a new lede. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I too tried to find RS for this subject. I felt like there must be some literary criticism somewhere, but it does seem to be fancruft. And believe me, I'm a fan. I searched expecting I'd find something in scholarship. (Note I'm travelling with bad internet, so I didn't do an exhaustive search. I'll try again when I get home and see if anything turns up. If it does, I'll revise.) Changing to keep. —valereee (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's John Clute in The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, attempting to list the typical features. The entry listed under "Literature", from The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Themes, Works, and Wonders is a couple of pages long, with a "survey" and a short following discussion, binding the themes together (mostly visible in Google Books). I didn't get any real in-depth additional articles on it while quickly glancing at Google Scholar, but the term did turn up often enough to indicate that this is a concept they assume the reader to be familiar with and which is in academic use. Ping valereee. /Julle (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would it be worth exploring a merge with ancient astronauts? Though I see that’s already offloaded it’s “in popular culture” section to a sprawling list article. Artw (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's anything here worth merging. We have an unsourced introduction that is mostly self-contradictory waffling that reads like someone trying to add 200 extra words to a college essay (An elder race might be extinct, or they might not. An elder race might be benevolent, or they might be malevolent, or they might be indifferent) followed by an enormous crufty list of examples, none of which are sourced in any way that demonstrates that they are good examples of an elder race. If we could strip this down to a couple of paragraphs of well sourced content then I would 100% agree with merging it into a related article or one of the "list of fantasy plot elements" type articles, but I'm simply not seeing any such content here. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR, not a notable topic, maybe something for TVTropes or urban dictionary, but at best WP:TOOSOON for us. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It didn't take long to find a respectable encyclopedia article about the topic. This demonstrates that it's feasible to write one; that WP:BEFORE has not been done properly; and that policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." There are plenty of other related pages such as Ancient_astronauts#In_popular_culture and Fermi paradox. The latter really is a major puzzle – "where is everybody?" Perhaps they are all busy editing the Encyclopedia Galactica in a wiki way so that all attention and effort is consumed by endless discussion... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Topic fails WP:GNG, so even removing the OR wouldn't help this stand on its own. TTN (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced fancruft. Even if the topic is notable, this is a clear WP:TNT candidate since experience has shown that leaving cruft around obstructs the writing of an encyclopedia article rather than acting as a platform for improvement. Reyk _YO! 12:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have eliminated all original research in the article and it is now fully sourced. While it was definitely a TNT candidate, that is fixed now. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this were to be kept in any form, I would actually propose the opposite of the Nominator's suggestion - rewrite the lede as prose information, and delete the list of unsourced, mostly WP:OR, examples. But, that's assuming there are enough reliable sources actually discussing the concept itself to establish notability. While there are plenty of examples of the term being used, the book mentioned above, which is actually already included in the article, is the only one I've found that actually discusses and describes the concept in-depth. Rorshacma (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Huh, what's going on? Two secondary sources have been found which treat this in significant detail, i.e. one page in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and two-and-a-half pages in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy. So it clearly does meet the requirements of WP:GNG. What's with all the "there are no secondary sources", when there clearly was one already in the article at the time of nomination, and a second one has been found? The fact that the current state is not good is no reason for deletion, as this can be improved, which isn't even difficult, just needs (a lot of) work. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I think it's entirely possible to keep this article just based on the sources that have been listed so far, without even having to go to further references. This is clearly an established concept used in academic literature and discussions. /Julle (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, and The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy also contains a bibliography of additional sources! So I really hope the closer of this discussion will discount all votes based on "not notable" without explanation or with "no sources" as explanation. Daranios (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By deleting it, you will incur the wrath of the Elders! Real talk though, it's a notable subject mentioned in two encyclopedias of science fiction and a very common trope in fantasy and sci-fi._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article has now been completely rewritten. /Julle (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources indicate notability, and there are apparently more available. Though I have never really encountered the idea of elders as more decadent than humans, as cited in the article. Being "elder" is typically used to depict these races as more experienced or advanced, not regardless of whether they are protagonists or antagonists. Dimadick (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2021 (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.