Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Picture of Dorian Gray (Chapter 12)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge and redirect to The Picture of Dorian Gray. This has already been done. Deathphoenix 16:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Picture of Dorian Gray (Chapter 12)
Well written and researched, but do we really need an entry for each chapter? --InShaneee 16:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not in my opinion. Could be merged, if anyone is interested and thinks the material is noteworthy. HyperZonktalk 18:36, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a noteworthy book, but that doesn't mean it should have individual articles per chapter. We don't have individual articles for Shakespeare scenes in his plays, do we? Nick04 19:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * We don't because no-one has created them yet; however, is there any reason in particular why we should not at some point in the future? &mdash; Dan | Talk 04:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge or keep, we have articles for individual star trek episodes and bible verses. Kappa 19:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but we don't have articles on individual scenes within Star Trek episodes (I hope). Bible verses are often cited or quoted without further reference to the rest of the work.  Even then, I would only encourage Wikipedia articles on specific Biblical passages that are frequently cited.  Chapter 12 of Dorian Gray doesn't stand on its own; delete this article. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:16, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That's my view as well. If there were a series of Dorian Gray books, then each one would be worthy of a chapter, or if the book was a series of short stories, perhaps. Delete and add a synopsis to the main article if one isn't already there. 23skidoo 00:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Books yes (if notable), but no to separate articles on the chapters of books, however notable the books.  --BM 21:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Ten, delete. Radiant! 21:25, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The book is a masterpiece, but we can't have an isolated article about a chapter. Would you like to have an article for each chapter of The Lord of the Rings or the Popol Vuh?? Surely not thiugh the notability of them --Neigel von Teighen 21:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There are, in fact, articles on the other chapters. This is well-researched, culturally relevant, encyclopedic information. &mdash; Dan | Talk 04:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not Cliff's Notes. And that Bible verse thing was a bad idea too. -R. fiend 21:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't Wikipedia rival Cliff's Notes? We're aiming for world domination, after all. :-) &mdash; Dan | Talk 04:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some bible verses are notable but other than those few parts of books don't deserve own articles. - Jeltz talk  21:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge. If such an article is written about every chapter in the book, then a main article should be created which links to each such article. However, if this is just a one-time article, not the start of a project, then delete, or better yet, merge into the main article. 141.225.146.182 22:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry, but individual book chapters rarely, if ever, need articles. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 22:08, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Binadot 22:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Having an article for every chapter of a book would be chaos. DaveTheRed 00:55, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree with all the above but have in mind that there are another 19 articles (Chapters 1 through 20) which all are identical in approach if not in content. There is also a perfectably capable article The Picture of Dorian Gray Velela 13:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why a single "perfectly capable article" which covers the very basics would be preferable to a number of far better articles which cover the novel in depth. &mdash; Dan | Talk 04:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Individual chapters of Dorian Gray are not important enough to sustain their own articles. What next? Perhaps an article about a specific page of Dorian Gray? My vote remains to delete this, and all the other chapter's as well. DaveTheRed 05:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. One article covering the whole book is just fine. Jayjg (talk)  19:26, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Everyking 04:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dorian Grey is eminently encyclopedic. &mdash; Dan | Talk 04:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * One chapter?!?!, DELETE or Merge. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge entire series and redirect. There is no reason we couldn't stuff this all in one article. -Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 04:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is the author of the contentious entry, checking in to give his view. My reason for thinking that each chaper of this novel deserves a Wikipedia entry is best summed up in one of the comments above: 'We have articles for individual Star Trek episodes.' My reason for not starting out by putting all of this material on one page is that this one is already getting prohibitively long. However, I appreciate that the preferred approach on Wikipedia is to develop material on one page and then divvy it up into separate pages when necessary. So if I've been presumptious in creating entries for individual chapters, and people vote to delete, merge, or whatever, then I will accept the decision with good grace and even help to do whatever is decided upon without losing any more of the content than is necessary. My ultimate ambition is to have as definitive a set of resources for a msterpiece of 19th century literature on Wikipedia as already exist for such geeky fictional universes as Star Trek, Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings. But if I need to go about it in a different way, then I am happy to do so.AncientHaemovore 17:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Addendum. As an interim measure to clarify matters, I have created this new page linking to each chapter entry I have created. If it is decided that these chapter entries are not to be deleted, then I will incorporate the list of links to them into this page. If it is decided that these entries are to be deleted, then I will follow the good guidance of my fellow Wikipedians in sticking the material wherever they think it should go, if indeed they think it belongs on Wikipedia at all.
 * Merge and delete the empty shell, although I admire and encourage the author's attempts to write about the book. My central reservation is that I don't believe the chapters can be dealt with as individual items, without a lot of clumsy cross-referencing. If we are to assume that each chapter will be read about separately, we would have to re-introduce the characters, plot, setting, themes and so on with each article; and if we are to assume that the reader is to read about each chapter sequentially, they should all be in one single page. I believe that whereas deliberately episodic works such as The Martian Chronicles, The Bible, perhaps Robinson Crusoe or Captain Scarlet lend themselves to such atom-splitting, this book does not. On an equally important level, we must all remember that Wikipedia's articles are a journalistic collection of ordered, referenced facts from external sources, and not original essays, no matter how well-written. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You offer cogent reasons for merging the chapter entries that I've created, in particular your point that items to be read sequentially should only exist on a single page. One could argue that such items should spill over into vertically subordinate pages if they become too long, but that's not the same thing as creating a series of horizontally equivalent pages, as I've done with Oscar Wilde's novel. Whatever the outcome of this vote for deletion (and I repeat my offer to tidy up the mess myself if necessary, rather than leave the admins with the headache of 20 content-rich pages to merge and/or delete), I welcome the opportunity to reflect on what a Wikipedia entry should be. I'm sure this isn't the first time that a pedantic devotee of a book (or film, piece of music, etc) has come up against the limits of how minutely detailed Wikipedia content should be, and it certainly won't be the last. AncientHaemovore 19:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Merge, and Condense. This is a lot of good work, and if there are entries on individual Star Trek episodes, as has been pointed out, a detailed entry on a very excellent book is only natural. Twenty detailed pages is too much, so make it one very good one.--SpiritGlyph 21:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * IMPORTANT NOTE. This vote for deletion is no longer necessary, as I've just put the contentious page and all similar pages out of their misery myself. Ashley Pomeroy and SpiritGlyph have succeeded in convincing me that all of this content should be kept, merged, and condensed. I've therefore come up with a solution that will allow me to present the same information clearly, in significantly condensed form, on the existing page for The Picture of Dorian Gray. If you go to that page and look under the heading 'Individuals referred to in the novel', you'll see that I've begun to do exactly that. I've also converted my 20 chapter pages, and my interim page of links to these 20 chapter pages, into redirects pointing to the main page for the novel. It only remains now for people to stick all of these redirects on Redirects for deletion, if they're considered redundant. Thank you for all your constructive criticism. And to the person above who said Wikipedia is not Cliff's Notes - Cliff's Notes will be forced out of business by the time I'm done with classic literature on Wikipedia. 'Nuff said. AncientHaemovore 21:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent job with the merge, and love the enthusiasm. Keep up the good work! --InShaneee 19:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.