Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northanger Horrid Novels


 * 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 merge to Northanger Abbey. Done pre-close per WP:BOLD. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 05:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Northanger Horrid Novels

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete - The grouping of these books derives solely from Northanger Abbey and it's all explained in that book's article. The content here is fine, well sourced, etc --- there's just no reason for it to have its own article. twl_corinthian (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are a number of potential sources as shown in the "find sources" links.  But if we do conclude that a separate article is unnecessary, I think a merge and redirect to Northanger Abbey#Allusions/references to other works would be a better result than deletion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, that'd do just as well. Northanger Abbey article already has the same stuff anyway.--twl_corinthian (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Northanger_Abbey. This is already fairly well covered in the main article and while there are some sources out there like this and this, there's really not much to add here that couldn't be better summed up in the main article. I would recommend re-writing the section to be a little more clear, though, since it's almost entirely just a section full of quotes from the book. That doesn't really do much for clarity's sake and there must be a better way to get the point across in fewer words and quotes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned it up. Offhand the page needs a very, very thorough scrubbing. There's outright OR and POV in the article, what with sentences like "The directness with which Austen addresses the reader, especially at the end of the story, gives a unique insight into Austen's thoughts at the time". This likely isn't incorrect, but it needs to sound less like a personal opinion which should be easily done by including sources and attributing these viewpoints to specific people like scholars and the sort. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect as noted above. This seems a clear-cut example of WP:NOPAGE.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Merged
Reasonable consensus after a week, so I merged it. How do I close/archive this discussion though? I can barely understand the instructions in the AfD-close guide. :S --twl_corinthian (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Another good reason for not NACing is being involved, cf. WP:CLOSEAFD. Sam Sailor Talk! 12:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * oops, sorry - hadn't read that guideline! We can leave the case open then. It'd be easy enough to reverse what I did (It was all the same text anyway apart from one sentence).--twl_corinthian (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2016 (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.