Deletion of Elder race

Comment: 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 . 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 tD|this can be improved, which isn't even difficult, just needs (a lot of) work
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:A)

Comment: Topic fails , so even removing the OR wouldn't help this stand on its own
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: unsourced fancruft. Even if the topic is notable, this is a clear  candidate since experience has shown that leaving cruft around obstructs the writing of an encyclopedia article rather than acting as a platform for improvement
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

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 , 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)