Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen King's inspiration


 * 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. BlastOButter42 says it best, this stuff belongs on the individual book articles... compiling all of these into a single article is odd and not really needed. If anyone needs this content for merging I will userfy it, assuming it isn't a copyvio as argued below. W.marsh 02:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Stephen King's inspiration

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has a number of problems. First, it is redundant per the various articles on the books (and incidentally the covers fail WP:FUC in this article). Second, the suject of the inpiration is covered in a very short para, a throwaway remark that belongs in Stephen King. Third, it reads as original research, althoguh there are osme citations. It has the appearance of a personal essay. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge the individual book sections to the entries for the appropriate books. Since the inspiration for each book seems to be different, there's not a common theme here; if King was on (sourceable) record as saying, say, all or most of the books were inspired by a particular incident (as with, say, Kurt Vonnegut) I could maybe make a case for keeping it separate to stop the main article on the author from getting too long, but that doesn't apply here —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  12:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A delete and merge isn't a valid option in most cases since the GFDL requires a history of edits be kept. So the choice is to delete, or keep in some form, even if just a redirect.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to appropriate novels as necessary, and, because there is no one novel that one can redirect to, a deletion might have to be in order. Note, had to replace the AfD tag - looks like JgZ accidentally struck it. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you can't delete, the GFDL requires a record be kept. In this case, if a split to the various novels/stories is warranted, a redirect to Stephen King would serve with a clear description of the splitting.    FrozenPurpleCube 15:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya know, I didn't think of that. =^^= -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 04:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Stephen King is a pop culture phenomenon, and the questions of his various inspirations is one oft asked of him at events at which he appears; I recall King once mentioning that the majority of the mail he receives includes, at least in part, some question about his ideas. Merging this into all the various books would eliminate the ease of simply pulling up this one article.Timmybiscool 03:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete but merge anything not already repetition to the articles of the novels in question. Having a separate article covering his inspiration for all novels is very much a loose collection of information. A1octopus 11:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Each novel already has an article of their own, and this information belongs there. Elrith 00:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 18:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect page to Stephen King. Move parts of the article to the individual book articles. --Whstchy 19:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Most of the books he written have their own articles. So the best idea would be to take each individual section and merge it with their corresponding book article.--Kylohk 11:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Elrith. Pavel Vozenilek 12:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge Well referenced, though the it is possible to merge the information into the book's articles themselves.  Goldenglove Contribs · Talk 11:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. King's inspiration as a writer has used up acres of newsprint and seems to be a fascinating topic for both fans and detractors. The article is very well referenced and fairly well written (with some messy parts). I can see some merit for an encyclopedia of WP scope including this information given how prolific and famous the author is. Checking a few of the individual book articles, merging could be problematic - Carrie for example is getting quite long already. However, if the article is kept it needs some TLC to give it a more consistent tone and incoming links from each of the individual book articles - only three are linked at the moment. Paxse 12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- A lot of the information there is copy/pasted from the "inspiration" links from his website. Content there is copyrighted, and a good portion of this article looks subject to copyright violation, even though it provides the link. Simple references (for example to Inspiration Page for Eyes of the Dragon) on each article would suffice in place of this, where the information is available. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sure where the copyvios are -- perhaps you could point them out, wizzard2k? Paxse, I agree with you. The article is well-written, fully referenced, and interesting to read. Unless there are copyright violations, which I cannot find, it should be kept. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Every section that starts with something to the effect of: On his official web site, King tells how he came up with the idea for Insert bookname here.
 * Stephen King's inspiration
 * Stephen King's inspiration
 * Stephen King's inspiration
 * Stephen King's inspiration
 * Stephen King's inspiration
 * Stephen King's inspiration
 * Stephen King's inspiration
 * Stephen King's inspiration
 * Stephen King's inspiration
 * Stephen King's inspiration
 * Stephen King's inspiration
 * all appear to be copyvio either from the printed books, or the website. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 22:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I see no reason to have the inspiration for each of his novels on one page, instead of in each article about the books. Having the inspiration for a novel in the article about the novel makes sense, since it tells something about the novel. But what purpose does consolidating the inspirations for all of his books into one article serve? To tell something about Stephen King? Maybe, but I think that's a bit of a stretch. A paragraph or two in Stephen King about his inspirations and giving a couple of examples would be better suited for that job. -- BlastOButter42 See  Hear  Speak  23:34, 29 May 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.