Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mana-Yood-Sushai

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 The Gods of Pegāna#Mana-Yood-Sushai. Redirect restored; previous edits were not deleted so the content is still stored in the history; however any future recreation of the article will need to address the issues raised in this AFD. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mana-Yood-Sushai

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Nonsense page about non-notable fictional character; apparently I must "take it to AfD" instead of tag for improvement. But it's unsourced with no content of use or note, and should really go. Kingsif (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why nonsense? The quotations are from a book that sold well in its day, and still sells today, and Dunsany's work is hailed as key to the foundation of one of the top-selling areas of literature today. 192.176.1.80 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect I redirected this article to The Gods of Pegāna#Mana-Yood-Sushai a week ago. I am greatly displeased that we have to discuss it here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because editors who otherwise wouldn't be able to create a page insist on making really bad pages out of new redirects. Removing the page entirely is probably easier. That book page is the only other reference to the character - if people were to search for it, they'd end up there anyway. Kingsif (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not discuss? Is that not how Wikis work? 80.233.47.229 (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to prevent fighting over it. Non-notable character that has a chance in hell to become a spinout one day. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the redirect and trout the nominator. There's a substantial amount of scholarly work and critical commentary about Dunsany and his cosmologies, and even the most cursory review of Google Scholar indicates that there's a critical mass of such material to base an article on. But the esisting article is just a few lumps of directly quoted PD text, not terribly useful. The main source of disruption here is the nominator, who has twice labelled an article about a fictional character a hoax and described an article that is expressly primary-sourced as unsourced. They badly need to review what they're and stop wasting other editors' time. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, would you kindly not sling personal attacks my way. Good evening and goodbye. Kingsif (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were no more of a personal attack than your comments about editors "making really bad pages." Would you kindly edit competently and in conformity with applicable policies? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For those who read, and only occasionally edit, I can only say "Trout away," as it is plainly false to label this content as hoax material, it's quite real, and has been sold and read in large volume. I am sure a better article can be made, so why not do so? 192.176.1.80 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Redirect with Potential: pending more scholarly input. 80.233.47.229 (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect. It's not an acceptable page, but if there's an appropriate place to redirect to, then it should clearly go there. That would provide the most benefit to the reader who's looking for information about the subject. Kingsif's rationale for removing the redirect -- that editors would be able to create a bad page out of the redirect -- is a crystal ball prediction. If someone creates another page about Mana-Yood-Sushai, good or bad, then we can look at it and take appropriate action at that time. Toughpigs (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve - as there is clear feeling visible that an "acceptable page" could be made, why not do that, instead of dumping the content. As a complete amateur, I already put in place a better structure for the article, using the quotations, and then offering two logical further headings. And Wikipedia must have experts on the popular field of Fantasy fiction. 192.176.1.80 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2020 (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.