Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surreptitious Machinations


 * 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, as already transwiki'd. Mango juice talk 00:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Surreptitious Machinations
This is the name of a plotline in the webcomic General Protection Fault. Previously I redirected this article to GPF, since I felt the details of the story were already sufficiently handled in the main article. However, my redirect was reverted by the author of the article with a demand that it go through AfD. So here we are. Though GPF is undoubtely a major webcomic, extensive plot summaries (and this one is very detailed) do not belong here, particularly when they're spun off into separate articles. It's a textbook example of WP:CRUFT. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This has been listed on WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Comixpedia. Great stuff but too much detail for WP.  Even episodes of Star Trek don't get this much detail.  Powers 14:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Comixpedia as per Powers. Very detailed article.  Dionyseus 16:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Could we transwiki the full description and keep a vastly-narrowed description of the storyline? I am the original author as mentioned in the delete request.  I understand the arguments for moving the full synopsis to Comixpedia [EDIT 22:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC): Comixpedia had a much-earlier, more basic description I had written.  I have copied the current WP text there].  But this storyline should not go unignored in Wikipedia.  GPF is arguably one of the most popular web comics of today, and Surreptitious Machinations was an all-consuming storyline within it.  Just as a major episode of Smallville or Star Trek would get its own basic article, I believe there should be something of an independent article on WP for this storyline. --Kitch 22:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's more analogous to a major storyline from a comic book than from a TV show, I'd say. But even if it wasn't, take a look at The Best of Both Worlds (TNG episode), arguably the most important (two-part) episode of TNG.  It includes an Overview, discussing the episode's role in the overall Star Trek saga, a relatively consise plot summary, and a criticism section.  And it's still shorter than this article.  =)  It's possible this storyline might merit an article, but it needs to be more than just a detailed rehash of the plot; it needs context, and it needs references for that context.  Powers 23:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a major plotline no doubt, but it dates back to 2002. No such synopses of later plotlines have been written, nor should they.  No webcomic has its entire plot mapped out in such an exhaustive fashion.  In fact, I suspect that's true of any work of fiction on Wikipedia, and that's the way it should be.  It's not encyclopedic and should be on a fan site. It even goes beyond Cliff's Notes.  We shouldn't even have scaled down versions of the plot spun off into separate articles either, since it makes maintaining consistency across them difficult.  Perhaps a single plotline article would be fine, such as Storyline of Bob and George, but even that tends to be a cruft magnet. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 10:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - A webcomic plotline. As per above. - Hahnch  e  n 17:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Wikipedia has articles on the plotlines of other series, so I don't see a reason to delete. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. I'd be happy to vote delete on most of those, too, and for the same reason -- too much information.  =)  Powers 21:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic cruft. -- Dragonfiend 04:20, 17 July 2006 (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.