Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satan (Old Harry's Game)


 * 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   redirect to Old Harry's Game. Courcelles 05:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Satan (Old Harry's Game)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Procedural, more than a dislike of the article. This has twice now been turned to a redirect  by TreasuryTag, once with the summary 'So many thing wrong' and the second reversion being because 'taking it to AfD would be disruptive'. I don't hold with this - I've always seen undiscussed redirection as being 'deletion by the back-door', thus a bad thing for its secrecy, not because conversion to a redirect is necessarily wrong. As I evidently can't stop the redirector from doing so, I'm bringing it to the public forum of AfD as the best available option. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * redirect with merge This article is on the major character of a notable and already-articled comedy, by a well-known writer and comedian. It is unreferenced, full of plot, and it would be hard to reference the content here, other than to find generalist references to the series. I thus find it difficult to justify it by strict policy terms. if I ruled Hades OTOH, we'd keep it. That said, this is an explanation of the main character of a show that has stretched over several series. If it were published by Marvel, we'd have disambig debates to make it the primary topic at Satan. The content warrants preservation, as it is the main dramatic point of a clearly notable show. (I would note that the previous silent redirection did none of this, nor was it likely to encourage it in the future).  Also, as I recall, the one time I've seen critical discussion of the show's internals (and a suitable ref for saving this - probably in The Guardian newspaper) it was in relation to the character being too central in the first series. The philosphy professor was introduced as a foil to this criticism. No WP:BEFORE seems to have taken place here, certainly no attempt to save by editing rather than deleting (sorry, redirecting - they're totally different). If anyone feels it can be saved in that way, then please do so. In strict policy though, I can't put up a strong case for this as an independent article. The content should be kept though (with editing, no doubt) and the redirect is reasonable to link Old Harry's Game from within the Satan clade of our structure. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy close this nomination because the nominator does not want the article deleted (SK1) and because they only made an issue out of this due to an entirely separate editing dispute making their participation more or less disruptive (SK2) . Redirect the article, which, as it stands, is almost painfully badly-written, takes an entirely in-universe perspective and is about a character with no independent notability. And trout the nominator. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale  ─╢ 09:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can assure you, despite our recent history, that this has nothing to do with that. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's rather odd, then, that you first made a big thing of this Satan business two minutes after leaving me an abusive message on my talkpage. But since you say it was just a coincidence, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and strike that portion of my comment above. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  sundries  ─╢ 10:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's indeed an odd coincidence that we have some shared interest in Andy Hamilton's work. However (for once) that's all it is. I can assure you that I just don't do that sort of thing - If I think you've made a bad edit that turns your talk page into an attack on another editor, I'll tell you about it right there and then. Nor was my message 'abusive', nor have other editors at WP:AN considered it so - even after your friendly mafioso-accented admin made me an offer I couldn't refuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with redirection is that years of AfD derailing by the project's most rabid fiction inclusionists have led to it being a catch-22: you can't redirect an article without someone screaming "if you hate the article so much take it to AfD", and you can't AfD it without someone (often the same someone) screaming "AfD is not for redirection". This is plainly not a subject that we are warranted having a separate article on, and in a sane world (call it, say, 2007) it'd just have been deleted and then posthumously recreated as a redirect. That's what should happen here, and the redirect protected for good measure. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the whole "AfD is not for redirection" viewpoint. AfD clearly is - just look at what it's used for so regularly.
 * I'm happy enough with redirection here - I just can't see that this article can be dragged up to WP:RS / WP:N on the issue of the character specifically. Much as I appreciate Andy Hamilton's work, it's not Shylock or Othello and there aren't GCSE passnotes published on Scumspawn.
 * My point is, that this shouldn't be a quiet undiscussed redirection, or one that abandons the current content. Work on articles such as this shouldn't be discarded so quietly and carelessly. I would very much hope that someone (where are ARS when there's a real need for them?) can do the legwork to turn this into a valuable section within the main article on the series. It is an interesting character, it is the core of the series. The risk (reducto ad absurdam, but that's how this place works) is that another editor who's probably never heard it can then tag the main article for deletion on the grounds of lacking content or character explanation.
 * The criticism of it being much too in-universe is a real one, but that's an editing job, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You can disagree that AfD isn't for redirection if you want, but WP:SK does seem rather clear on the matter. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Counsellor of State  ─╢ 10:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete but paste the text into the other article if you like. No one is going to look up "Satan (Old Harry's Game)". The info is all about the show. One article on that should be enough. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ...although copying the text would involve combing it for WP:UNDUE, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:INUNIVERSE violations, and I suspect that such an analysis would reduce it to an infinitesimally small number of bytes. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  high seas  ─╢ 12:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like some in universe stuff is okay in an article on a show. At least the show itself is clearly notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like that to me... ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  CANUKUS  ─╢ 08:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Too bad there is not WP:GETREAL. Look at any article on a movie or TV show, or for that matter a novel. Much of it is "in-universe" plot summary.  That serves the readers and seems to be what most Wikipedians want. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:SOFIXIT It's just copywriting, no reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is actually that there's not a terrible amount of out-of-universe material one could say about Hamilton's Satan. If it had been covered in reliable sources, about production, characterisation etc., then there'd be no need to delete/redirect the article in the first place. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Odelsting  ─╢ 08:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The characterisation of Satan, and Hamilton's introduction of modern management themes, is interesting - that's probably one reason why we both listen to it. You're right that there's a lack of referenceable comment on this (AFAIK, I haven't searched) - Has anyone compared it seriously to the obvious target, Screwtape? None of this though is an in-universe problem. That's still just copywriting. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I think this is one of the best modern fictional characters, and I'm actually surprised that there are so few commentators commentating on it (yes, I've looked!) – but it therefore is a bit of an in-universe problem: the only verifiable comments we can make are extended plot summaries, which go against several bits of the MoS. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  most serene  ─╢ 08:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This is articles for deletion and is emphatically not for bickering about the use of ordinary editing tools. Neither the nominator nor his antagonist seems to have made any effort to discuss the matter at the article's talk - they haven't even created a talk page.  Please see WP:DR for the resolution of ordinary editing disputes. Warden (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note The opinion I expressed, not a "vote," was based on the potential notability of the character independent of the show. It had nothing to do with the actions or inactions of other editors. So again, delete because it seems like the character is the show and the article is not useful to readers, for whom WP is supposed to exist. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is no evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject and the content of the article can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. A quick search engine test does not show evidence that reliable reliable third-party sources address the fictional character in detail to presume that it is an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. There is nothing salvageable from the article as nothing is referenced and the content appears to rely on original research by synthesis. Jfgslo (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2011 (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.