Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wells & Wong Detective Society

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 redirect to Murder Most Unladylike. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wells & Wong Detective Society

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

This article is about characters in a book. I don't see how the characters are notable outside of the book, there is no significant coverage of them in reliable sources (other than being mentioned as characters in the book). Attempts to redirect the article to the book have been met with resistance by the author of the article. ... discospinster _talk 21:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:FANCRUFT Acnetj (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) We do not delete pages because a BLAR was reverted. If this topic is not notable, it should be redirected to the book Murder Most Unladylike. If someone edit wars over the redirect, the page should be protected. That is ATD. (2) Calling content "cruft" is not a valid argument for anything. If I am wrong about that, the essay WP:FANCRUFT should itself be deleted as "wikicruft" and "deletioncruft" and "deletionistcruft". Cf. Wikipedia:Don't call things cruft (aka NOCRUFT). James500 (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable from a real world or out-of-universe perspective and surely WP:FANCRUFT. A fictional detective Society from a book Murder Most Unladylike that has solved eight fictional cases. Since the "fictional society" would be known to someone already familiar with the book it does not need a redirect. Maybe if the fictional society solves a world-renoun fictional case and somehow gaining non-fictional notability it might be different. Otr500 (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not one of the criteria for deletion of redirects under WP:R. Redirects must be shown to be positively harmful. As a general rule we do not delete plausible redirects because they facilitate accidental linking, avoid the creation of duplicate articles (which usually get re-created over and over and over again forever if there is no redirect), and the deletion of their page histories can lead to copyvios if they have ever been copied anywhere, and etc etc etc. Not to mention that we might want to merge some of the content to the book's article. As a general rule we avoid deleting plausible redirects like the plague because the results are usually bad. This is all in the guideline. James500 (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: "Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the "deletion policy"." and not specifically the redirect guideline. There is always a lot of Wikilawyering on AFD's, and some otherwise good willed closers get confused. The bottom line is that all but a KEEP !vote is a determination that an article does not deserve stand-alone status on Wikipedia. Renamed/moved to another title is still a keep just under a different name. Because of the continued confusion and the easy way of closing as "no consensus, even when it is clear that consensus is for no stand-alone article, I have had to adjust accordingly when an article does not (in my opinion according to my interpretation of the policies and guidelines) deserve stand-alone status. You can bludgeon the process by negatively responding to every !vote you disagree with as it is evident that you are a proponent of keeping the article. At some point, you can continue to try to ride the dead stinking horse that has been badly beaten even when dead or you can just let the process proceed and the closer will make a determination. I have made the move to help confused closers with "keep", or "delete" (maybe merge when appropriate) and your comments can try to persuade a closer to redirect. I am sorry but I am NOT going to continue struggling against Wikilawyers that two keeps, two redirects, and two deletes equal a "no consensus" when (see above) no stand-alone status is super clear by a 66% margin. Maybe, just maybe, I can affect some change with others that "if it doesn't belong" by consensus (delete, merge, redirect, or other) the recourse is only to figure out "which of the other options" are viable. As for WP:FANCRUFT: You may find disdain for the word but the article explains "Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question.". This "may" (wikilawyering aside) have absolutely no bearing on a particular editor so feigning being offended if that person wasn't even in the equation is simply ludicrous and trying to dig up a bone to pick with someone. It "may" be as simple as a belief that the subject or content would or is directed at a "small population". Since I DO NOT intentionally attack anyone it will be an attack on me to not assume good faith that there was no malintent and IF someone has doubts it is so much easier to ask than to pull out the machine guns, rocket launchers, or lawyers. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One brief comment pointing to an important relevant guideline that has been overlooked is not bludgeoning anything, but this kind of accusatory screaming fit that accuses me of things I haven't said at all (I have certainly not argued for keeping the article) certainly is. Bottom line: WP:R is a guideline, and what is says is very clear. Nothing in the text of WP:AFD contradicts what WP:R says. James500 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WOW!! The Wikilawyering NEVER ceases-- ever. One comment plus one comment equals ---two. The "Ranter" complains of someone ranting. I will type slowly in English: I made an observation "...it is evident that you are a proponent of keeping the article.". I typed as slow as I could so possibly read it twice. Your comments: "...but this kind of accusatory screaming fit that accuses me of things I haven't said at all (I have certainly not argued for keeping the article) certainly is.". Not one word (I looked twice while retyping) asserted that you have "argued for keeping the article". Your reply gives the impression that you were angry, maybe even red-faced, as you pounded out the silly comments. Yes they are silly! Taking offense and blatantly typing false things. That is actually comical to me. You did give a long rant of opinion, and I have offered mine, and yours was more than "One brief comment". To refresh your memory, or poor eyesight, what you signed as typing: "Calling content "cruft" is not a valid argument for anything. If I am wrong about that, the essay WP:FANCRUFT should itself be deleted as "wikicruft" and "deletioncruft" and "deletionistcruft". Cf. Wikipedia:Don't call things cruft (aka NOCRUFT)". That is a rant about your apparent disdain for things including the word cruft. I disagree and so do other editors. I might suggest you take a chill-pill (drink or whatever your vice) as this is good advice to prevent high blood pressure or heart problems. You obviously don't like the word "fancruft" and I dislike words like "cabal" but to rant that "any" use of fancruft should be deleted is your opinion. Keep at it though and it may catch on. IF you are seeking a "plausible redirect" then add that as part of the process so a closer can consider it as I am under no known mandate to only !vote redirect. Well the horse is long dead so you have a nice day, Otr500 (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If someone searches for it, Murder Most Unladylike is the top result. Simply non-notable fiction-cruft, and unnecessary as a redirect - should be deleted._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder Most Unladylike or delete as the topic does not appear to be notable enough for its own article. This could be a potential search term so a redirect may be helpful, though I also understand Zxcvbnm's point above my comment and would not disagree with a deletion either. Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder Most Unladylike - plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2018 (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.