Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Averoigne


 * 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. Consensus is clear, and issues with the presentation of the content are a matter to be resolved by editing within the article. BD2412 T 20:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Averoigne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This fictional concept does not have more than a trivial mention in reliable third party sources, and cannot meet the general notability guideline. As is, the entire article appears to be original research and it is impossible to discern fact from fiction. I'm guessing it's written entirely in-universe, which means that it cannot meet WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep CAS is a significant author in pulp in the 1930s and recognized as a part of the Lovecraft circle of writers "None strikes the note of cosmic horror as well as Clark Ashton Smith. In sheer daemonic strangeness and fertility of conception, Smith is perhaps unexcelled by any other writer.” - H. P. Lovecraft.Chikako (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This is good material for a fan Wiki, but not an encyclopedia.TH1980 (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's an extensive body of critical literature on Clark Ashton Smith, including commentary on this story cycle. The problem here is that the article has been framed as one about the fictional setting rather than the story cycle itself, even though most of the content relates to the cycle. That problem is easily fixed, and certainly not a reason for deletion. Although not all of Smith's stories are individually notable, there's more than enough commentary, both in discussions of Smith's work itself and in reviews of books in which the stories appear, to greatly expand the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Plenty of sources. The OR and in-universe claims are clearly rubbish, as an actual look at the article will determine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I added a few references from critical works. Critical Insights: Pulp Fiction of the '20s and '30s (Salem Press, 2013) has about four pages about Averoigne. It's also discussed in Modern Fantasy Writers (Chelsea House, 1995). I don't have access to Clark Ashton Smith: A Critical Guide to the Man and His Work (Borgo Press, 2013), but it's a 220-page book about Smith's work and it is certain that it includes coverage of Smith's Averoigne cycle. I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that the article should be edited to focus on the story cycle rather than the fictional location. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per the available reliable sources."Visionary Star-Treader: The Speculative Writings of Clark Ashton Smith". Critical Insights: Pulp Fiction of the '20s and '30s. Encyclopedia Cthulhiana: A Guide to Lovecraftian Horror (2nd ed.). Modern Fantasy Writers. Wm335td (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename to Averoigne series or Averoigne cycle per Toughpigs and Hullaballo Wolfowitz, which would make this a much more encyclopedic article. The current list of references is all the fiction itself, and the article has no citations at all. But there are sources about this as a series of stories. It should be rewritten to focus on the stories as a whole, including a section for reception and a summary of the stories. I'm assuming there's a reception of the book series based on a brief look at the sources from Toughpigs. Worst case, this can be merged to a section about the author as a phase of his literary career. Jontesta (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as a not notable fictional concept without enough coverage in reliable secondary sources, as per WP:GNG. I see Toughpigs point about re-framing the article about the books themselves, but that's a different article with very little content worth preserving from this one. A rename and rewrite is an acceptable second choice. Archrogue (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 15:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - The current article lacks proper sourcing on the fictional element. Unless there is overwhelming sourcing for the cycle right off the bat, it should just be started as a section in the author's article and be split out when it can stand alone. TTN (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Clark Ashton Smith. The tiny reception section is poor but perhaps a source or two could be salvaged. Other than that, not seeing what makes this fictional land notable. Nobody has demonstrated that there is non-WP:TRIVIAL coverage of it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article has extensive literary coverage, and I do have to agree with . The nomination rationale lost me at and . Guessing? Why are we here then?  Dark  knight  2149  23:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * At the time of nomination, the reader would have to read heavily between the lines to realize it's written in-universe, and you might almost think it was a real world location. It's no matter, because the real issue is that there are no sources that can give it meaningful out-of-universe context, which is a requirement of WP:PLOT. I'm not opposed to the merge solution, or to rename and rewrite it as the shorthand for a series of stories. But as is the third party sources have almost nothing to say about this fictional location, hence the AFD. Hope that answers your question. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.