Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Things in Atlas Shrugged

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 of the debate was no consensus; since there isn't much support for keeping, I slapped the merge tags on all of the articles for those who know better (I'm not qualified to merge these...). Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things in Atlas Shrugged

Unencyclopedic fancruft; I am also requesting comments for all such subpages (listed at Category:Atlas Shrugged - there are currently 8 subpages for this book). I'd list all of them for deletion, but that's way too tedious for me. -- infinity0 20:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any arguments / discussions to make about this AfD, please do so on the talk page of this AfD, instead of cluttering up what each person has to say. -- infinity0 17:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete: 9, Delete: 4, Keep: 5

Delete all subpages, merging any important content to main article or not more than one sub-article. -- infinity0 20:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. We have articles like this on almost every bestseller in the past 100 years. See Template:HitchhikerBooks, Portal:Doctor Who, Portal:Harry Potter, Portal:Middle-earth, etc, etc, and the articles within. (Also, why wasn't this nommed for deletion in past 5 years?) --Rory0 96 20:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC) After seeing the previous comment, with which I edit conflicted, Speedy keep as possible bad-faith nomination because of a vendetta against article subpages. --Rory0 96 20:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Please put them up for deletion and I will vote for them to be eliminated completely as well!!--Lacatosias 10:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, to counter a user I know, who will be likely appear soon. — Mar. 22, '06 [20:54] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
Weak Keep though I suggest that it should be renamed Notable Objects in Artlas Shrugged instead of "Things" --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 21:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Artless Shrugged?? LOL!! That's one of the best typos I've seen in a long time. Thank you!!--Lacatosias 07:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Purge all subpages except "Characters." It needs to adhere to encyclopedic standards and cover the main elements only. There are salvageable elements to all subpages but most of the content is dreck. I question the motivation of the nom given the comment above, but he has a point. Atlas Shrugged is significant as political statement, not as a literary piece (honestly, I think it's literary drivel - go see my user page if you think that's a bad faith comment). Were it a comprehensive literary universe like some other series, you could argue it. But having subpages on the literary nuances is overkill for this one work. I wish we had more eager deletionists piping up when the Sci-fi fancruft comes up for deletion, though. --Mmx1 21:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rewrite~~ Delete unless rewritten during AfD. Things currently include The future and a bill. Dlyons493 Talk 21:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Future is the name of a magazine in the book, but its section in the article needs work. JD 00:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment thanks, it wasn't obvious and I just took it at face value. Dlyons493 Talk
Delete. It's a low quality entry, and it reeks of fandom. The title is ridiculous. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 22:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The current quality of an article is specifically mentioned on WP:DP as not a criterion for deletion. --Rory0 96 04:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because "list of general items" doesn't jibe well with WP:NOT, even if it is from a specific piece of work. --BWD^(talk) 22:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the other articles in that category: most of them need to be merged into the Atlas Shrugged article. --BWD^(talk) 22:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Purge all subpages except "Characters", which just needs to be cleaned up. Having said this, some of this material is too diffuse and irrelevant to be merged, so it should just be removed after an attempt at merger fails. Alienus 23:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per infinity0 nom and vote. Shaggorama 00:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. The smaller things could probably be merged, but the more useful things would be well off here. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything worth noting with Atlas Shrugged. Purge the rest. Lucidish 01:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep / Rename - Atlas Shrugged is not the bible. It is, however, the second most influential novel in the USA. This article (and the others in the category) gives a valuable cliff notes type overview of some of the important concepts in the book. It could easily be expanded. The entire Atlas Shrugged category could use a cleanup. Deleting these articles (which have value to many) in a limitless space encyclopedia would IMHO be counter productive. HSchickel 05:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. I am literally unable to respond. Alienus 10:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might there be a home for pages like these on Wikibooks or another wiki project? Esquizombi 05:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The article in its current place is not useful, but the content should, ideally, be included within the Plot part of the Atlas Shrugged article. However, I'm no expert. In the name of Tact^tm I contacted several authors of this and related pages to comment and/or contribute. Failing that, I would definitely rename, but not delete. The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 10:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. This is the type of fanatical and reverential propagandism for a single individual that terrifies serious-minded, professional contributors, such as Larry Sanger, away from the Wikipedia. I will shortly be joining the list of these ex-Wikipedians if stuff like this is kept just to be niceto everyone with a radical ideological agenda. If you think that would not be a loss, please look at the contributions that I have made in the period of only three months to the philosophy department on my user page. More substantively, if pages such as this are kept, it certainly cannot be objected if I add articles on things in Uno, Nessuno e CentoMilla, places in Uno, Nessuno e Centomilla, ideas in Uno, Nessuno e Centomilla etc.. Then, things in L'Esclusa, places in LEsclusa, women without hair in L'Esclusa...things in Il Turno Plaecs in Il Truno, concepts in Il Turno...places in Il Fu Mattia Pascal, things in Il Fu Mattia Pascal, psychology of subpersonal relations in Mattia Pascal, things in this important work of Pirandello, things in important work1 of Dostoyeskij,things in important work2 of Dostoyeckij things in important work3 of Dostokecyki...things in important work1000 by Dostotyeckij...things in marginal Italian author unknown outside of Italy (this would, in fact, be the equivalent of the Ayn Rand case since she IS unknown outside of the US). places in marginal author unknwown outside of Italy.........................................................uou get the idea!!--Lacatosias 10:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Purge. - Let the Randites present whatever information they like, but they should keep it to one article per book, maximum. KSchutte 15:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, etc. A useful selection of potential search items that will be valuable to readers. The degree to which this nomination seems to emerge from an enmity to the subject or its politics is quite disappointing. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Purge. - This information really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia except where it is relevant to the discussion of the book itself on that page Ig0774 01:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Merge and Delete is an unclear vote, since the reason for AfD'ing something instead of simply putting in a redirect is that the article in question, its edit history, and any future edit not involving a major rewrite are not useful to Wikipedia.
- This article falls under that description. Delete. Do not redirect. If the Objectivists wish to salvage any of this fancruft, they know where the edit buttons are. Septentrionalis 04:12, 27 March 2006 (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.