Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code

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. While i mostly agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, there is a clear consensus to keep. Kevin (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code[edit]

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

Procedural nomination, prod was contested, user re-adding prod template to article suggesting desire for more discussion. Reason provided was "This page may be inappropriate for an encyclopedia, the article is clearly biased and inflamatory, and in no way adds value to the original article. There are few other literary works that have received such treatment and this one should not either. This article is just a vehicle for one specific point of view to "debunk" the original book."

Prod was contested with reason: "Page split from main article giving it notability, bias is not a reason for deletion, but is a reason for clean-up. No prejudice for an AfD as long as relevant parties are notified" Taelus (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean-up is my personal view as I contested the PROD. The article seems to be a valid split from the main article, although it does need some attention to improve it to meet our quality standards. --Taelus (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I will admit I have just started the book and respect it as solely a work of fiction, the reason this article needs to be deleted has nothing to do with the book, but with it's validity as an article on wikipedia. I have checked the articles for several major literary works, some controversial, some not: Mein Kampf, Dante's Inferno, Lolita, War and Peace, Moby Dick, The Twilight Series, and none of them have a separate "criticism" "inaccuracies" or "controversy" page, and I do not seem why, in the big picture, a much less notable novel is deserving of such a page. Furthermore, the article was clearly written with a clear agenda in mind and is not merely biased, but is designed to prove a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmaniora (talk • contribs) 10:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with Bmaniora - we have a lot of criticism/controversy articles, and the fact other articles lack them doesn't mean an unrelated article should not have one. Highly detailed/referenced, and meets all requirements. Aiken ♫ 11:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These sorts of pages are often suspect, being a soapbox for people who disagree with something. However, in this case, there is substantial coverage of this precise topic. It could exist as a standalone article, let alone as a branch from the article of the book. I could perhaps see a concern regarding the article title, but that is a discussion to be had elsewhere. Quantpole (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of this article is palpably unsourced original research. To begin with, so far as I can see, there is no sourcing/referencing to the novel itself, which is absolutely fundamental for an article which supposedly cites inaccuracies in the novel. Many of the claims of what is "accurate" are unsourced, and others appear to be hypothetical/speculative/unfounded. For example, the article claims that the claim of a New York to Rome flight passing over Portugal is inaccurate, but cites only a page which at best describes typical flight paths; there is nothing to indicate that such flights cannot pass over Portugal, or have never passed over Portugal. There are other claims that the book is inaccurate because characters, events whatever, do not reflect what is "typical". This makes no sense; one might as well argue that a murder mystery is inaccurate because a class of people to which the murderer belongs typically do not commit murder. Since a central premise of the novel is that accurate religious history has been suppressed, it makes little sense to claim that the religious history presented in this work of fiction does not line up with conventional versions. What next? An article on "Inaccuracies in Jurassic Park" with content like "There are no dinosaurs alive today"? "Inaccuracies in Harry Potter" beginning with "There are no real wizards." "Inaccuracies in Superman" beginning with "Men cn't fly" and "There is no planet Krypton." There may be a place in Wikipedia for an article on criticisms of the novel, based in some part on reliable secondary sources which discuss supposed inaccuracies, but this one is certainly not that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:If by "sourcing to the novel" you mean footnoting specific claims, this would be almost pointless because the book exists in numerous editions each of which is paginated differently. This should not be an issue as long as the claims made are not in dispute. This article should be reverted to its original name (Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code). The numerous notable books that have been written on this have been criticisms of assertions made in the novel about history or religion, and, to a lesser extent, the interpretation of art. These are the notable issues. Paul B (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. Just because a book has multiple editions is no excuse for not supplying references to an easily accessible version, like the primary trade hardcover. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing ridiculous about it. Why don't you buy the "primary trade hardcover" if it's so easy and take the trouble to fix all pagination issues? And why should we privilege a US edition over other English language editions that would be a chore to obtain outside the US? Seriously, there is no way we can keep consistent page references unless one editor has some sort of master copy and changes all page references to it. Even then it will be useless in practice to many or most readers. Referring to specific chapters would be more valuable. Paul B (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was "easy". I said the primary trade editon was "easily accessible," which is different. WP:V requires that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source, as required by this policy. It's not acceptable to say the equivalent of "read the book, it's in there somewhere." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with Paul. Since page numbers vary, introducing them is not feasible unless somebody does it in one go (using whatever edition he pleases). But since an article is bound to progress after that and the one doing the pagination effort cannot be expected to do it again and again. One could do references to the individual chapters that do not change from edition to edition. However, this is neither an urgent problem nor is it one that has any bearing whatsoever on this AfD. And if the article should be renamed "Criticism ..." it is not needed either, as the criticism would have to be sourced to the critics, not to the novel. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean-up. The DaVinci Code cannot be fairly compared to Moby Dick or Jurassic Park. It contains some very controversial historical theories, many of which have been seriously put forward before. Controversy is legitimate and notable. ... But, article is overlong and descends to irrelevant nit-picking on many smaller points. ... Lot's of clean-up :) Kace7 (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean-up. This article started as a section of the main DVC article. It was made into a separate article because it was taking over the original. I think a secondary reason was that fans of the novel disliked so many criticisms. Its original title was "Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code". It was changed without any real consensus relatively recently. The former title legitimated literary criticism and debate, but the present title tends to produce a pedantic list of petty errors, when really it should concentrate on the significant issues, which are its claims about religion and its interpretations of art works. Paul B (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple academic articles have been written about this precise topic. There are plenty of reliable sources, and the topic is clearly notable. --El on ka 02:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elonka. --John (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up and move back to "Criticism", as Paul B said - "it should concentrate on the significant issues, which are its claims about religion and its interpretations of art works". Uthanc (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - any problems that article might have can be solved by editing it. The topic is notable and hence the AfD frivolous. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - several books were written on this topic. Much of the content could, potentially, be merged elsewhere, possibly, into the articles most relevant to those particular controversies, but I'm not sure that all would fit elsewhere, particularly the lawsuit matter, and that is probably sufficient cause to keep the article. It could use work, but all articles could. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This novel is controversial, and the controversy, if kept in the article, is undue weight. This article is a useful source of critical analysis. Toss out any OR, keep sourced stuff. --Stani Stani 21:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to, perhaps Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code. The book is a work of fiction, we should not expect it to contain verifiable fact. There is no article Inaccuracies in the Harry Potter series, for example. in fact there seem to be no other articles among the 3-million-plus entitled Inaccuracies in ...'. But there is Religious debates over the Harry Potter series and a similar title should work here. Sussexonian (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a piece of fiction. How is listing the inaccuracies in a piece of fiction even remotely notable? How about Inaccuracies in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, or maybe Inaccuracies in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace? The fact that some people think The DaVinci Code is real doesn't make its inaccuracies notable.--Blargh29 (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is notable because the topic has been covered in multiple reliable sources. If the same can be said of Superman IV, then there could be an article for that as well. Quantpole (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clean up, and move back to previous name, for the reasons given by Elonka and Paul Barlow. A quick search at Amazon.com for "Criticism of The da Vinci Code" turns up at least a dozen books published on the topic, so a lack of notability isn't an issue. -Sketchmoose (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable Vartanza (talk) 16:31, 6 December 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.