Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Cowshed

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 merge to Animal Farm. There is little support for deletion, and some of the keeps seem to be based on WP:USEFUL or WP:HARMLESS. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Cowshed[edit]

Also nominated:

There is no need for any of these articles. The plot of Animal Farm is adequately summarized in its own article. There is no need to create subarticles that attempt to replicate every single detail of the book for specific events. Doing such violates WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:INUNIVERSE. There is no indication that these events have any importance to anything other than being part of the book, and WP:WAF makes clear that notability for fictional things should be established as it would be real things. Savidan 05:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They read like half-assed student entries from Sparknotes. Redirect all to Animal Farm without merge. --EEMIV (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all--No objections to mergers, but these elements of Animal Farm are not covered in the main article. Jclemens (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Seven Commandments: it is almost certainly best as a separate article. There should be a very large amount of secondary sources about this, and about its cultural use in other works, and in politics. As for the others merge. They probably would do better combined in some way, but the talk pages are the place to discuss how. Nominating these together is indiscriminate,and shows a failure to understand what is important, both in terms of the study of literature, and in terms of what makes a good Wikipedia article.If the nom is in good faith, he should withdraw the Commandments from the AfD. DGG (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ — Notable elements of a notable work. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Windmill (Animal Farm). Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

striking above; since the Battle of the Windmill is to be merged, this then should be, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Windmill (Animal Farm), undue weight on the topic as it stands now... and the main article could use the good parts of this article to repair it, as it has too much original character synthetic analysis and not enough scholarly (i.e. cited) analysis ++Lar: t/c 23:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And stop trying to delete useful things. I just looked this up for interest. It is useful. We aren't running out of hard-drive space. Wik idea 13:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not useful as it stands, since it's uncited and disjoint. It belongs back in the main article. And if merged, a redirect would be left behind so the topic would still be findable. ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all There is no need for this nomination as there are excellent alternatives to deletion, given that these topics are highly notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [and/or merge what little information is sourced to Animal Farm ]: WP:INUNIVERSE topics offering no intimation of real-world relevance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is wide of the mark as the article directly indicates the allegorical parallel typical of this work. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your invocation (via a pipe) of WP:POINT is both a non sequitor and in-WP:CIVIL -- kindly remove it. That story elements are allegories of the real world, does not necessitate relevance to the real world. In any case the allegorical aspect is only given vestigial coverage in the articles -- meaning that they in no way necessitate separate articles to cover this point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Warden comment is valid. This !vote with its argument from silence/argument from ignorance was almost certainly created because of Warden/Hrafn's differences in the recent edit history of Modern Theology stub. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Firefly322 for those inaccurate and irrelevant accusations. "Lack of evidence" (i.e. WP:RS in this instance) may not disprove a premise, but it does mean that WP:Notability hasn't been established. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Animal Farm. Artw (talk) 18:32, 20 July 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.