Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nac Mac Feegle (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. There appears to be consensus that the page does not need to be removed in its entirety, though editors may wish to apply explosives at their leisure. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Nac Mac Feegle
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is a very long plot summary with not a shred of indication of notability (it was already deleted in 2014 for the same reason but apparently recreated - no, sorry, I don't feel this has been improved sufficiently). My BEFORE finds mostly the same in scholarly works (Pratchett's overall visibility in academia is suprisingly high). This has two sentences of decent analysis, but that's a far cry from WP:SIGCOV. And let's face it, even if we find a bit more, 99% of this article is fancruft in need of WP:TNTing. I suggest redirecting this to The Wee Free Men in the spirit of WP:SOFTDELETE. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature,  and United Kingdom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  14:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect as suggested seems ok, this isn't notable alone. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't believe you do that book justice by claiming that there are only "two sentences of decent analysis" of the Nac Mac Feegle, page 19-23 have whole long paragraphs about them, basically 5 pages about them, not just two sentences. Now, something like this may come closer to the 2-sentence-mark than the 5-page-mark, but it still is an additional secondary reliable source about them. I'm unable to see just how much this book has to say about them, but this one has enough to warrant a keep (no page numbers, but e.g. the section starting "The Wee Free Men are "the way around the rules" embodied" and the next pages place the Nac Mac Feegle in an anarchist perspective). They have their own section in this French book. Most of the pages on them in this book are not accessible to me (I can see p. 150, but not 151-152), but it discusses the origin of them as a mixture of pixies, Picts, and ants. If they only appeared in Wee Free Men, then a redirect might have been for the best; but as they are central characters in 5 or 6 books, and have received more than enough commentary as highlighted above, having a separate article is fully warranted, even if the current one needs loads of work. Fram (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For the record, the two sentences I referred to where in the book review, not the book. Sadly I don't have access to this book through Google Books, but I'll see if I can find other ways. If you are correct, the topic may be notable (good), but I still think the current article needs a WP:TNT treatment - although this can be done without admin hard deletion, just by gratitious reducing this fancruft to a stub, and/or expanding it with the sources you found. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A copy can be found at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/secretsofweefree0000pyyk -- Auric   talk  21:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) Keep per Fram, who has my thanks for doing that so I didn't need to, but can search out further sources if needed. I also agree that redirection to a single book is inappropriate as they are major characters in multiple notable Discworld books.
 * 2) Thanks for the courtesy ping.
 * 3) "Fancruft" is not now, and never has been, a reason for WP:TNT per the essay itself. The vast majority of times that essay is cited, it is cited in a manner inconsistent with its own wording, and this would be one of those times. No objection to appropriate cleanup, but as I just addressed at Unseen University, people seem unwilling to do the nuanced work to actually improve and integrate, rather than eliminate, coverage. Deleting stuff is easy; making it into encyclopedic coverage is much harder. Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2023 (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.