Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire lizard

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. MBisanz ^talk 12:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fire lizard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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 "Fire lizard" 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. I'm also unable to find a home for the single sourced statement at the bottom. ThemFromSpace 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, not a notable creature, no out-of-universe significance. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks totally made up -- no out of universe context/meaning. OR as far as I can see. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It needs to be sourced from the novels, but its a major theme of a major series a novels. Not OR. I see from the article of McCaffrey thast there are some secondary works about Pern as well, and they would certainly do it. I havent seen the Critical Companion volume on her, but it's a very respected academic series. G search does not replace printed sources. Therefore the nomination statement of there being no possible sources is not correct, except for those whose view of the world is limited to Google. . DGG (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: I'll disagree with DGG on one of his points; I think that Google search is very handy. For instance, Google book search shows 19 books that mention "fire lizards." Google scholar has another five. I'd call that plenty of raw material to base an article on. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable, a key component of a series of many notable books, also referenced by other books that talk about dragons and whatnot. Dream Focus 10:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This does not meet the WP:GNG as there does not appear to be significant coverage in independent sources. I see trivial coverage in some works, but nothing significantly focused on this particular topic. Also, there appears to be no real-world information available. Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability guideline, is just a guideline to help you make a decision. Its a suggestion, not policy. And something from a work of fiction, does not need references outside of that source. Dream Focus 19:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion. I do not share it, especially as Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines states that 'this does not mean that it is appropriate to ignore guidelines simply because they are guidelines. Without any indication that there is real-world information available about this topic (or any significant coverage of the topic), we are left with an article that recreates the plot arc from a book. Karanacs (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly notable? Evidently notable? Hmmm.... No reliable sources independent of the subject address this fictional thing at all, let alone to the extent that it would pass our notability guidelines. Absent reliable sources it's also original research and difficult to verify.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any doubt that the information is valid? Why would the source need to be independent? Is there any policy on that? Guidelines are suggestions, not policy. Recommendations, and nothing more. Dream Focus 19:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if, as you'd like, the notabilty guidelines be done away with this article is extremely difficult to verify even as to the accuracy of its claims in relation to the work of fiction these things inhabit. I'll tag appropriately to show you the problem (this particular problem fixed, we're still left with the notability and original research problem as to claims about how important (or not) these things are, their impact, etc... in the work of fiction).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable and I bet the article namespace ought to be taken by some actual lizard (I think it is unlikely that none of the actual reptiles is named this way). Nergaal (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:JNN not being a valid reason for deletion, especially when as shown above the subject is verified in numerous reliable sources. "Fire Lizard" also appears as the title of books, etc. so whether the article should be about these specific ones, there is clearly enough sources for an article on some kind of fire lizards and as such no reason to red link here. For example, Salamander derives from a Greek word for "fire-lizard" (see also [1]), Fire Lizard is the title of a book of poems. Now the idea of Salamanders as "fire lizards" is indeed discussed in who the concept has been perceived in myths/fiction as well, as seen here. Thus, clearly there is something to be written on about "fire lizards" even if as a merge and redirect to the article on salamanders with a short section noting the word origins and meaning or to rework this article to be about how fire lizards have been addressed in multiple works of fiction. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be aware that Google searches are not references. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2009 (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.