Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Teresa (fictional city) (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 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Santa Teresa (fictional city)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is not notable enough for its own article nor is it long enough, it should be deleted as this topic is already covered in the article about the book (The Moving Target) where this non existent fictional town exists and the events take place. per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:N MY♥IN chile 22:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per aboveMY♥IN chile  22:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Generally, editors do not !vote on their own nominations. - Dravecky (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into The Moving Target - CL — 00:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Change to keep below
 * Keep - In light of Dravecky's comment way below, this is obviously a POINTy nom and solely because of that I'm saying that this article should be kept. Of course, this is a bit unneeded since it will obviously be kept, but editors should not behave in such behavior. CL — 02:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable well-referenced article that needs expansion, not deletion. This is a second try to delete this article in two months. Most of the available information exists for the 20+ novels by Sue Grafton that use this locale, not the one MacDonald novel the nominator is attempting to merge this info to. Indeed, the only references on that article are ones imported from this article as is the text about Santa Teresa that was lifted wholesale. Further, the nominator already tried a quiet merge/delete/redirect without consensus earlier today and thus is abusing the AfD process with what I believe to be a bad-faith nomination to achieve an end he could not achieve by brute force. - Dravecky (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * comment - needs expansion, well then expand it yourself, the last deletion had consensus yes but so what, this is a different issue, i think the topic is notable, but not notable enough for a separate article, this is clearly a new issue. which i tried to bring up by being bold and redirecting it to The Moving Target since there was insufficient debate on the merge at talk and it was reverted so i changed course in good faith for the betterment of this project. most information exists huh... THEN PROVE IT! or deal with it, the fact of the matter is that if your too lazy to improve it yourself then it really invalidates the whole argument that it could be improved, please point out what 20 novels these are, source it, add it, or allow the merge until someone does and it can be splintered off. but as of this moment these novels don't even verifiable exist. there is no abuse going on, just boldness like your revert, i must say it sounds like Dvacecko has some WP:OWN issues. calm and don't let it get to your head.MY♥IN chile 02:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Reply Four of the five sources on this article deal specifically with the use of Santa Teresa in Sue Grafton's "alphabet mysteries" it it's already both proven and sourced. I don't know who "Dvacecko" might be but I'll be sure to caution him against that issue. - Dravecky (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into The Moving Target. This is an unusual one because the city is featured in two different series of stories by two different authors so having it as a stand-alone article would be useful. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this article has little chance of ever being more than a fairly insubstantial stub so I think it should be merged. May I also suggest to Dravecky and Myheartinchile to settle down and not let this debate get personal? Reyk YO!  04:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Ned Scott 06:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as per the multiple clear arguments that earned this article a "keep" verdict in an AfD proposed in May, 2008. It doesn't make sense to re-propose this article for deletion so soon after the previous discussion. There are many fictional places that have Wikipedia articles (e.g. Gondor), and there are many more good articles that started out as stubs. betsythedevine (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument is completely invalid, firstly this deletion discussion is under different pretenses, the content is notable but does not stand alone, before it was a discussion on its notability. Sure there are many fictional places with article but why should this ministub not be merged? You have ignored the arguments for deletion and have simply voted. tsk tsk.MY♥IN chile 00:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tsk tsk? The "multiple clear arguments" I cited include clear reference to the town's notable existence in the novels of Sue Grafton, now considerably more familiar to most people than The Moving Target. Looking at the revision history of that article I see that as of July 31 it was nearly doubled in length just six hours before this AfD by the addition of material about Santa Teresa and Kinsey Millhone. I see also that three of the four references now cited in The Moving Target come from works about Sue Grafton, not about Ross MacDonald. I do not see that information about a fictional town made notable by Sue Grafton should be a re-direct to a novel by Ross MacDonald. You could make a better case, given the "pretenses" (your word not mine) of this AfD, for a re-direct to a section under Kinsey Millhone or Sue Grafton. But since the town appears in the work of both authors, I think a separate article is justified. betsythedevine (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If Sue Grafton is so damn important why doesn't she have an article on wikipedia, why don't any of her alleged novels have any articles? the fact of the matter is that the only place santa teresa is mentioned is in The Moving that has an article. Also no one has yet to prove if the Santa Teresas are the sameMY♥IN chile 17:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sue Grafton's Kinsey Millhone novels include "A" Is for Alibi (1982), "B" Is for Burglar (1985), "C" Is for Corpse (1986), "D" Is for Deadbeat (1987), "E" Is for Evidence (1988), "F" Is for Fugitive (1989), "G" Is for Gumshoe (1990), "H" Is for Homicide (1991), "I" Is for Innocent (1992), "J" Is for Judgment (1993), "K" Is for Killer (1994), "L" Is for Lawless (1995), "M" Is for Malice (1996), "N" Is for Noose (1998), "O" Is for Outlaw (1999), "P" Is for Peril (2001), "Q" Is for Quarry (2002), "R" Is for Ricochet (2004), "S" Is for Silence (2005), and "T" Is for Trespass (2007). - Dravecky (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, I'd say that clinches it. Sue Grafton has had her own WP writeup since 2004, people around the world have read her many novels, and there are piles of sources. Heart in chile, please stop with the contentious, poorly researched nominations and arguments, and take a minute to consider the tone of your remarks. oh, and for the record, that is a Strong Keep vote. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Nominator also put "R" Is for Ricochet up for AfD and while the result was a speedy keep, I found the "logic" behind the nomination somewhat revealing. - Dravecky (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, would some admin care to close this Afd in the light of this, this, and this ? betsythedevine (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I second that - CL — 02:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * whatevMY♥IN chile 03:05, 4 August 2008 (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.