Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator / Keep as rewritten - Jontesta (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-terrorism in fiction[edit]

[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)

This is a list of random examples with only unsourced information or primary information. Maybe an article about the overall concept of ecological resistance in fiction could be notable and discriminate. But creating this topic as a list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and fundamentally cannot meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG, due to it being a vaguely defined plot device (list includes anyone who vaguely battles for or against the environment), and due to a lack of sources describing this concept in direct detail. Jontesta (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Definitely agree on the possible potential of a prose article, but this list can be TNT’d without anything being lost. TTN (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the stub state of the prose version of the article is a suitable enough alternative to let the topic build from there. It might be good to look into merging it somewhere should that end up being its maximum growth potential later on, but that can be handled at that time. TTN (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST
The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question...
When one makes such a search, sources seem easy to find. For example, What Is Called Ecoterrorism; Crime Fiction and Ecology; British Terrorist Novels of the 1970s – Environmentalists and Conservationists: Terrorising the Countryside; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Eco-terrorism in fiction exist, and a list is always more useful than a category since it can have more information in it. The BBC list it at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/topics/Eco-terrorism_in_fiction and its covered elsewhere as well. Dream Focus 01:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TTN. The list is vague and overbroad, and completely unsourced. Even if we were to add some sources, we would need to remove the WP:INDISCRIMINATE list and effectively start over from scratch. Would not object to this topic being re-created as an article about the concept, instead of an indiscriminate list. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like with Far future in fiction, the topic is notable, but this is an indiscriminate list with no salvageable content. I.e., WP:TNT. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although this will always be an incomplete list, it is still a valuable one. Balle010 (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jontesta once again fails to give a discernable reason for deletion. The rationale in the nomination:

Ignores WP:ATD, WP:ARTN, and WP:NEXIST.
Mischaracterises WP:GNG by admitting that the topic "could be" notable if the article was better written. In actuality, notability does not change based on the quality of the article.
Justifies deletion by listing off problems with the writing.

AfD is not clean-up and deletion is not a go-to remedy. Per WP:PRESERVE and Jontesta's own statement, the legitimate solution here is to rewrite the article. And WP:NOEFFORT is not a rebuttal. Dark knight 2149 20:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In its current, revised state. When I initially saw this AFD yesterday, my initial thought was the same as the Nom. While the actual topic was probably notable, the fact that the current article was completely comprised of unsourced information meant that it should not be kept due to simple reasons of WP:V - we simply cannot keep unsourced information on the encyclopedia. However, it seems that since then, User:TompaDompa has already begun the process of eliminating the unsourced information and replacing it with examples described in reliable, secondary material. In this state, it is perfectly acceptable, and serves as the foundation for the more comprehensive article on the topic suggested by even the current Delete votes. Rorshacma (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article by Lawrence Buell and the Darlington chapter linked by Andrew Davidson are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Michael Ziser's chapter in Terrorism and Narrative Practice is also likely to be useful, as is Marta Puxan-Oliva's chapter in The Routledge Companion to Crime Fiction, which cites Buell, though I don't have access to the latter. I agree that this should be a prose article rather than a list of examples, but it's a notable topic whichever way it's written (and, credit to TompaDompa, the article is much better now than it was when nominated). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Listing works of fiction wherein a particular plot point appears is what TV Tropes does. I agree with the nominator and those arguing in favour of deletion that the list was WP:INDISCRIMINATE, though the topic is suitable for a prose article. To this end, I have edited the article such that instead of looking like this, it looks like this instead. Since these two versions are not in any meaningful way the same article—though they both share the title Eco-terrorism in fiction—this is effectively the same thing as a WP:TNT delete and do-over from scratch (except the edit history hasn't been deleted); the current prose article is to the previous list article as Climate of London is to List of rainy days in London. I think this should be a satisfactory solution to all involved based on the comments so far. Pinging @Jontesta, TTN, Shooterwalker, and LaundryPizza03: would you care to weigh in on this? TompaDompa (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thank you for editing and for understanding the issues here. The difference between Climate of London and List of rainy days in London gets at the standard we should apply here. One is a encyclopedic article and the other is a list of arbitrary original research. I'm hesitant to call a WP:TNT during an AFD satisfactory, because it's very easy for people to ignore consensus and revert this the moment that no one is looking. But that's not a slight against you personally and I want to assume good faith of other editors out there so that we can move forward. The new article does have a better scope now and we won't have any issues if it stays that way as it expands. I'd ask that the closing admin note that there is a consensus to rewrite this, even if the rewrite has already been done. (Or if you're fine with that I'll close it myself.) Jontesta (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seeing no objection to this and I think we can mark this as some combo of keep/withdrawn due to the rewrites. Jontesta (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic per the recent changed by TompaDompa Spudlace (talk) 06:24, 27 November 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.