Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megapolisomancy
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 keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Megapolisomancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I hate to do this (because I like the novel), but this article treats its subject from a basically in-universe, and unsourced, perspective; and I know of no reliable sources that treat it otherwise. Certainly, any literary study that mentions Our Lady of Darkness—about we don't even have an article—has to mention this concept, but in the absence of sources treating the concept significantly from a real-world perspective (discussing sources or analogues of Leiber's notion, for instance), I don't see that an article on the concept can be admitted here. This fails WP:N. Deor (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Write and merge The novel should have an article, and a somewhat abridged account of this should be part of that article. Had I encountered this, I would have constructed a stub article, and done the merge, instead of bringing it here. But the nom could do it better, because he knows the book, and I do not. DGG (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deor commented on my talk page that he thought my suggestion not to the point. . Perhaps I could more conventionally word it: Move to Our Lady of Darkness, cut some of the detail, and add the necessary additional material. Is it clearer that way? DGG (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I moved it. The article still needs quite a bit of work and citations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, indeed, and your move of the article has not resulted in either an acceptable article about Our Lady of Darkness or an acceptable article about the topic megapolisomancy; and yet it's somehow managed to thoroughly mess up this AfD about the article on the latter topic—a topic which the move failed entirely to address. It seems that some folks are willing to do anything to confuse, obfuscate, and otherwise disrupt discussions in this forum without actually improving articles or making them meet the WP inclusion requirements. I guess I should not be surprised. For the benefit of any editors who subsequently come upon this discussion, the article I nominated for deletion dealt with the topic of megapolisomancy, not the novel Our Lady of Darkness, and ChildofMidnight's move of the article to a different title doesn't somehow magically manage to make it be about the novel rather than the in-universe concept, which still fails WP:N. If an article about the novel, rather than this fictional element, is desirable, someone (perhaps even I) will write one; but this isn't the way to go about it. Deor (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you're not happy with my edits. They were well intentioned. The article could definitely use some major pruning. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, indeed, and your move of the article has not resulted in either an acceptable article about Our Lady of Darkness or an acceptable article about the topic megapolisomancy; and yet it's somehow managed to thoroughly mess up this AfD about the article on the latter topic—a topic which the move failed entirely to address. It seems that some folks are willing to do anything to confuse, obfuscate, and otherwise disrupt discussions in this forum without actually improving articles or making them meet the WP inclusion requirements. I guess I should not be surprised. For the benefit of any editors who subsequently come upon this discussion, the article I nominated for deletion dealt with the topic of megapolisomancy, not the novel Our Lady of Darkness, and ChildofMidnight's move of the article to a different title doesn't somehow magically manage to make it be about the novel rather than the in-universe concept, which still fails WP:N. If an article about the novel, rather than this fictional element, is desirable, someone (perhaps even I) will write one; but this isn't the way to go about it. Deor (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have no view on whether this should be deleted or kept. However, if it is kept, it is much more likely that the article will be improved, new and encyclopedic information will be added, any salvageable material will be put to good purpose, under the new title. Bongomatic 09:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also have no view on whether this should be deleted or kept. But, if it is kept you need to find some references.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 10:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am also concerned about the total lack of references. The title and length of the article are irrelevant if there are no sources. Drawn Some (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge - depending on where the article is moved to! I found this essay through this search which cites a book as having 4 pages on Our Lady of Darkness: Byfield, Bruce Witches of the Mind: a Critical Study of Fritz Leiber Necronomicon Press 1991. Not the most encouraging name for a publishing company when in search of a source, but the site leads to this possibly useful page. I see the Fritz Leiber page lists the Byfield source, are none of the other books of use? Ultimately, the number of hits generated by "Megapolisomancy", although slightly random, suggests wp needs at least a stub to tell the interested what it is (I don't think this argument holds much weight - "Ooh, there are lots of hits for that funny youtube video...") which can be expanded as and when... The page should probably live at Our Lady of Darkness with a heading on Megapoliomancy. Either that, or a bit of a mention at Fritz Leiber. Anyone got a copy I can borrow?! Bigger digger (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Leiber seems like quite a well known author, surely there are reviews of his book written in the 70s? Who's going to go to the library to check..? Bigger digger (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as currently, as a redirect to article on the clearly notable novel, which gets 11 gnews hits, and 202 gbooks hits.John Z (talk) 19:06, 23 May 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.