Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inner Party

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 the content somewhere. There's a consensus that this should be merged but no consensus for a target. What to merge and where is a subject for the article's talkpage so there's nothing more that can be done here. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Party

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

Unlike, Ingsoc, which has considerable scholarship focusing on it, the idea of Inner Party in relationship to Orwell, is usually in mention of themes in Orwell's works. As far as I can tell from a google Scholar search, the term does not have larger repurcussions on scholarship except in the context of terms related to Orwell, and studies of the social structure of 1984. A merge might be appropriate, but it certainly doesn't warrant it's own page. Sadads (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with Nineteen Eighty-Four or upper class. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this, outer party, and proles to Political Structures in Nineteen Eighty-Four or something like that. If REALLY desired and someone wants to do the legwork, it'd also be reasonable to merge those plus others into a larger milieu article. Still, having said that, the nom is self-defeating because multiple RS dealing with this in "context of terms related to Orwell, and studies of the social structure of 1984" is sufficient notability for keeping. Still, no reason to have three stubs on differing political ranks in the same novel, no matter how important that novel. Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to merge along with the other political fiction stubs of from Nineteen Eighty-Four (the parties and the ministries) per Jclemens. I think that most these terms are not notable enough (WP:N) for stand-alone articles, and factually, most of them are unsourced (or only based on the primary source) and shouldn't be kept (or merged). But politics in the novel are a notable topic with the potential to become a Feature Article one day, so the current text should be saved for the time being to build a basis. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:46, 16 February 2011 (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.