Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1632 plot threads
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 merge to 1632 (novel). Spartaz Humbug! 06:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1632 plot threads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
non-notable, unsourced heap of plot from an alternate universe. Delete. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to a main article, where different books are listed as parts of the plot threads. No need for a subarticle. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge main article already has a smaller section containing this info. Transfer anything that is useful and delete the rest. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Although fan-created fiction is new and interesting, this conflicts with WP:PLOT by placing too much weight on the plot and isn't notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article of it's own. Salvage the important bits in he main article. There is a 1632 Wiki, the rest can go there. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the title "plot threads" is not consistent with the values of Wikipedia. Abductive (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article 1632 series is already tagged as "too long," so I do not see merging as an option. The series is notable and includes at least one best-selling science fiction novel per the New York Times [1]. Per WP:PRESERVE, our goal is not to eliminate verifiable information about notable subjects from Wikipedia. If it cannot be shoehorned into 1632 series then leave it here. Edison (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, because self-indulgent editors have written a bloated article elsewhere, this bloated article which violates WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:OR gets to survive? Abductive (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can vilify the editors who created the article as long as you choose to continue violating WP:NPA with labels such as "self-indulgent," but the the basic information of what happens in a work of fiction is obviously an essential part of any encyclopedic coverage of it. If it needs editing, then edit it into compliance with applicable policies and guidelines. I do not claim that every event in each of the thousands of pages in the dozens of books needs to be covered. Plot summaries of appropriate length are essential. Note that WP:PLOT is currently "Disputed." Still, it calls for real world context, and Europe in the 1630's is, well, the real world, aside from the effects of the future people who arrive there. The disputed guideline does not say there cannot be any mention of the plot of a book or series of books. This series has had reviews which could serve as independent and reliable sources for some of the plot thread information. Edison (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Real world means secondary sources, not the setting of a novel. I didn't mean my self-indulgent comment to be taken personally by anyone here, but rather to be a stylist reference. Abductive (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable and independent sources are needed to satisfy the notability of the series of books. That is not at issue here, since there are references which show it includes a "science fiction best seller" and many of the books have good coverage in secondary sources[2]. I am concerned with how best to cover the series. Either in a main article or spin-off article there needs to be adequate coverage of the setting, the plot, and the characters. I strongly prefer lists to a plethora of individual articles about each thing featured in a fictional universe. Each chapter or each plot thread does not have to meet the notability criterion individually, since they would be naturally be covered in the main article about a notable book series, but for there being too much to fit there. There are thousands of pages of text, including much real life historical and technical data, and that pushes me toward endorsing some spinoff articles, where adequate coverage would make the main article too long. I do not feel that a secondary source is needed to verify what an original work of fiction says, since we can read the work of fiction to verify what is in it. Original research would be conjecture about things that are not explicitly stated in the fictional work. Edison (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Real world means secondary sources, not the setting of a novel. I didn't mean my self-indulgent comment to be taken personally by anyone here, but rather to be a stylist reference. Abductive (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can vilify the editors who created the article as long as you choose to continue violating WP:NPA with labels such as "self-indulgent," but the the basic information of what happens in a work of fiction is obviously an essential part of any encyclopedic coverage of it. If it needs editing, then edit it into compliance with applicable policies and guidelines. I do not claim that every event in each of the thousands of pages in the dozens of books needs to be covered. Plot summaries of appropriate length are essential. Note that WP:PLOT is currently "Disputed." Still, it calls for real world context, and Europe in the 1630's is, well, the real world, aside from the effects of the future people who arrive there. The disputed guideline does not say there cannot be any mention of the plot of a book or series of books. This series has had reviews which could serve as independent and reliable sources for some of the plot thread information. Edison (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, because self-indulgent editors have written a bloated article elsewhere, this bloated article which violates WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:OR gets to survive? Abductive (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom, the plot sections of articles on fictional works should never be spun out into subarticles. Massive violation of NOTPLOT. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (merge) and fix. The preferred course of action in WP:PLOT is not deletion, but improvement -- PLOT does not provide a delete rationale, but a merge one. Those concerned "with the values of Wikipedia" should read WP:PRESERVE without which there simply would not be such a thing as a Wikipedia. The sprawling 1632 articles sure do seem to lack an overhaul, and some pruning, but this is a more nuanced response than hitting the delete button. AfD is not for cleanup Power.corrupts (talk) 11:33, 3 August 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.