Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hate week

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 Mandsford 21:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hate week[edit]

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

The fictional event isn't particularly notable, and the only referencing from outside sources is used to support the plot summary, not in fact any Real World information. Though I would probably follow the suggested merge, I also thing that content is non-notable/has considerable OR in it. Sadads (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also suggest deletion of Two Minutes Hate per above rational, Sadads (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is nothing in either article to indicate these are WP:OR. There are inline citations. There are books discussing this exact subject, using this exact term, which is from classic literature, yet has its moments in popular culture. Is the problem the type of references? I know the books exist. I know that they discuss this exact term in detail. I know they originate from classic literature. However, I do not have access to the exact books, nor do I plan to visit the library anytime soon. As such, I believe we must assume good faith, and keep these articles. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are reasonable topics from one of the most influential fictional books ever written. I don't see a problem with having articles on them in WP for people who come across the expressions, or who want to learn more about 1984 without actually reading it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kitfoxxe. Sadads needs to put down the monitor and read a bit more of something worth reading. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment This seems a bit crazy. I quote the following elements from Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction) which clearly show that a piece such as this with trivial secondary coverage, does not meet notability.

"Real-world coverage: This establishes real-world importance or provides appropriate context for understanding real-world importance, versus detailing only the fictional adventures of characters." Cleary it does not meet this element. Where is the real world information?
"Role within the fictional work: The element, such as a character, must be verifiablity important within the work: the importance of individual elements can be demonstrated when they are referred to in more than passing in reliable sources, or if there is a reference to the casting of the character in a reliable source." - Don't see this element as being more than a passing element with 1984, I respect the book and the author, but fictional elements don't belong.
"However, the consensus at Wikipedia is that articles about fictional works should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split resulting in undue weight being given to insignificant details or trivial coverage." - this is deffinitely minutiae
And lastly the big whopper "Coverage of fiction on Wikipedia needs to be more than a plot summary of the work. " - The current citations are not to significant analysis of the work but passing mentions, which is reflected in the plot summary of the work.

I think within the guidelines for fiction, their is hardly any way to actually defend such an article, especially when the references develop plot elements, not any serious analysis, Sadads (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you look through the spoon-fed links at the top of this discussion to Google Books and Scholar searches you will see that secondary coverage is far from trivial, and contains plenty of serious analysis. If the current content of the article doesn't explain the "real-world" importance, or go beyond plot summary, then that is a reason for editing, not for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is particularly notable, being discussed in detail in reliable sources. It should be kept for improvement in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep, significant term from one of the most notable books of the 20th century. THere's plenty of references to analysis of the term's significance, and 'hate week' is discussed in classrooms world wide.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' both Google news search for "Hate week" and "nineteen eighty four" shows results. [1] You can search for results in Google books and Google scholar as well if you wish to bother. Dream Focus 23:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for "two minutes hate" you'll find ample coverage as well. This is a good one. [2] Search the page for "two minutes hate" and the first explains what it is, then the second time it appears it states that is what is going on in modern times in the real world when talking about America's enemies. Hmm... Google news says its a credible website, but I'm not certain. Other results out there though. I believe both articles are notable. Dream Focus 00:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sources give us significant coverage on the subject itself, just passing discussion as a cultural reference. This could be absorbed by 1984 or articles related to it but does not deserve it's own article, notability is not sufficient for significant coverage, Sadads (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With regard to Sadads's citation of the proposed fiction notability guidelines, one must consider what is written in the paragraphs immediately preceding those three numbered criteria, specifically: " Before proposing that an article is to be deleted, it is important to not just consider whether the existing article meets these inclusion criteria, but whether it's subject has the potential to do so. All Wikipedia articles are unfinished, and an article can be notable if sources exist but have not yet been used in the article. [...] These criteria are not exhaustive, nor universally agreed upon, but are a guide to how to best organise content" The Two Minutes Hate is a key thematic element in the novel 1984 as it typifies the nature of the control of both thoughts and actions which the dystopian state exerts on its denizens. This level of control and its effects on society is the entire rhetorical point of the novel; the Two Minutes Hate is used as a shorthand, just like Big Brother, in both quotidian and academic writing to allude to this. That is in addition to the notion of the Two Minutes Hate being relevant in academic discussions of dystopic literature. For examples, see google scholar search. Bennyfactor (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve It was easy to find sources to WP:verify notability. Too easy. The hard part is sorting through them and writing all of it up. I took a stab at having at least SOMETHING to assert notability. But we can most certainly do better. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2010 (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.