Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investiture of the Gods (chapter 1)


 * 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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:41Z 

Investiture of the Gods (chapter 1)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

All these articles constitute is an unsourced plot summary, which may be construed as unattributable original research. Also, this plot summary is far too detailed, thus failing WP:NOT. Merging isn't really an option here due to the sheer size of what we're dealing with. MER-C 06:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * chapters of fengshen yanyi
 * chapters of fengshen yanyi
 * chapters of fengshen yanyi
 * chapters of fengshen yanyi


 * Delete all There is already an article on the book, we don't need seperate articles and summaries for every chapter. TJ Spyke 07:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Thanks for doing this, MER-C. I wasn't up to pasting 30 separate AFD templates. -- Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Could these possibly be transwiki'd into Wikibooks or some other sister project as an extensive plot outline? –Pomte 08:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Al-Bargit 11:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. A plot summary isn't OR, but this is still a bit much ObtuseAngle 13:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * - Originally, I thought it to be pointless to list a source around the plot summary -- for it would obviously be based off of its specified chapter. I know that making individual chapter articles off of a novel is rather strange to Wikipedia's norms, but I believe such actions could easily make this foundation be seen as a more creative society. You would think it to be rather strange, but won't it make Wikipedia a greater place within the end? All the information within each individual plot summary is word-for-word with my own knowledge (excluding a few quotes) and is thus liable information to be told. I could however make it slightly more organized and creative by organizing the info within bold headline titles -- such an action would make the information more organized and is thus probably recommended. Thus, to avoid any problems, I will specify the exact page numbers that the plot summary is based from.

Overall, you could say that my chapter articles could be used as external informational links to each character within the Fengshen Yanyi characters category. If these chapters remained in existance, I could take every character and organize them into a few different character list article (such as "officials of the Shang Dynasty", or "Superiormen of Fengshen Yanyi"). Within each biography, I could say a general amount of information, and then provide bold subtitles of the characters' specific actions that will lead to a chapter; Thus chapter articles could combine "trivial" information with general information that is wanted by Wikipedia. Thus, these actions will make Wikipedia more creative and will combine information with Wikipedia's standards, and the want of the people. User:Tathagata Buddha, 10 March 2007 (EST)
 * Those are suggestions that currently run counter to Wikipedia consensus, so if you want to put that kind of stuff on here you're going to have to go to the relevant talk pages and try to change consensus.Sarcasticidealist 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all The book itself is extremely notable, but this level of detail is a bit much. What's more, each article itself is disjointed - going to one article (via random article, for instance) I would have no idea whatsoever what it was talking about, and I'd likely stick a speedy delete on the page. I strongly suggest the creator either userfy these pages, see if Wikibooks would find them appropriate, or create his own website. The information really is valuable, but it's both too detailed and too disjointed for Wikipedia. -- Charlene 20:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh Lord, WHY? Make it stop, please! (that's a delete vote, btw). -R. fiend 22:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. The book itself is notable, but mostly for reasons unrelated to plot, which works against the notability of this information.Sarcasticidealist 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Wikipedia isn't Sparknotes. --Wafulz 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per TJ Spyke. —dima/s-ko/ 01:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per the nomination. We aren't a detailed synopsis of a book's chapters.  Barring that, a possible transwiki to Wikibooks might be in order. --Dennisthe2 02:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if so, these chapter articles could be used as a source of trivial information that may wish to be known. For example, see Characters of Kiba; this is a grand example of an unorganized - far too uncategorized article. My objective is to take a page like this, trim down it's information, and basicly you could say transfer it to external articles (such as a chapter article in this case). For example, I could take every character currently within the Fengshen Yanyi character category and put them into a few different mass article pages, such as "Offficials of the Shang Dynasty" and "Superiormen of Fengshen Yanyi". After telling a certain amount of general information for each character based from each specific plotline (or chapter in this case), I could label the corresponding chapter within parenthesis.

Example:

Su Daji Su Daji is a major character featured within Investiture of the Gods who has contributed greatly to the Shang Dynasty's fall. Throughout Daji's many torture devices, the Bronze Toaster (6) would be her first creation. The Snake Pit, and the Meat Forest (17) would be her additional creations throughout the course of the novel.

---

Thus, instead of rambling on amount information that is "trivial", but yet needed in order for an individual to completely understand the plotline, the chapter articles could serve as information containers. As of the moment, my Category:Fengshen Yanyi characters is rather unorganized and generally says information that is already said within my chapter articles. Thus, by keeping these chapter articles alive, far more organization within the Fengshen Yanyi characters could be achieved and "trivial" information could be at a set base, while "general" information is at another base. Even if it is not seemingly right to have chapter articles within this foundation, it will avoid overcrowdment and will instill creative organization; and I thus believe they should be contined. However, if the chapters are still linkable from wikipedia to wikibooks, then I will conclude that such an action could be acceptable. User:Tathagata Buddha, 11 March 2007 (EST)
 * Comment: Adding a delete vote would be gilding the lily, so I'll just confine myself to these remarks.  I appreciate that you think Wikipedia ought to be more creative, but what Wikipedia is is an encyclopedia.  We all want "creative" encyclopedias like we want "creative" telephone books or "creative" computer instruction manuals.  These entries would have no place in a telephone book or in a computer instruction manual, and they have none here.  RGTraynor 18:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all, this is a pretty clear case of what Wikipedia is not. Chapter summaries simply aren't in an encyclopedia of anything.  --UsaSatsui 15:06, 13 March 2007 (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.