Eisspeedway

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables

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 IAR delete. Most "keep" arguments hinge on WP:IAR(?!) and textbook examples of WP:ATA. I close this with no prejudice towards expanding the section in the main article, transwiki of contents, etc. —Kurykh 01:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot of Les Misérables

Plot of Les Misérables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Masaruemoto 01:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Les Misérables. The plot summary details could be cut down a LOT, but there still is potential for the Les Misérables article to receive a bit of information, and perhaps a summary to each book. GrooveDog (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible KEEP. This is Les Misérables! Have you ever seen how thick the unabridged book is? You cannot do justice to even a summary of the plot in the space of an overall article on the book because a proper plot summary would overwhelm the article. And it's not as if the book is too unimportant not to have more than one article about it. This is the book that, when first published in installments, soldiers in the American Civil War waited to read as each new installment was shipped across the Atlantic. It's one of the most well-known classics of French literature (at least to the English-speaking world). What is the overwhelming reason why this plot summary must be included in the main article? A bureaucratic rule?!? This is a classic, classic situation where WP:IAR should be applied, but you could also apply guidelines having to do with inordinate space for certain sections of articles. I believe the Wikipedia servers can handle this. Noroton 03:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little more looking around: Wikipedia has a whole category on Les Miserables, for crying out loud. With three subcategories for the books, plays and six movie adaptations based on the book. We have about a dozen between two and three dozen articles in all, with only one or two of them more important than this one for an understanding of the novel. And doesn't the play take, what, four hours? Five hours? Six hours to run? There's a reason for all this. It might be that there are a lot of readers interested in an article going into the plot in more detail.Noroton 03:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC) (edited to get the correct amount of articles on Les Mis Noroton 04:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • In looking at some of those other articles, frankly, a bunch of them ought to be deleted or merged too. The stage musical adaptation is certainly notable but every song from the musical isn't and the entire contents of the songs subcategory should be deleted. Pointing toward other Miz-cruft doesn't justify this article, which is again a blatant policy violation, existing. Otto4711 15:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How sad: You're saying that you support having an article on a musical but (as your vote shows below) you would delete this article, which is so important to the better understanding of an important subject, and all because one meets a bureaucratic rule and another doesn't meet another bureaucratic rule. You're letting adherence to bureaucratic rules hurt Wikipedia, a classic situation to which WP:IAR is supposed to apply, for the better protection of Wikipedia, which your adherence to these rules would trivialize into something pretty philistine. You argue your point well, and that's helped me to try to refine mine. Please see my comment at 00:52, 6 July 2007, below. Noroton 01:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why yes, I do support having an article on the musical adaptation of Les Miz, because the musical adaptation of Les Miz is notable. I would not support having an article devoted to a minutely detailed plot summary of the musical adaptation of Les Miz, because such an article would be a plain violation of WP:NOT. Sorry if you find that sad. I find your "sadness" and your general attitude patronizing. Otto4711 01:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're a regular in deletion discussions. Somehow I think your skin is thick enough to endure any "patronizing" from me. Rather than get in a huff and ignore my objections, you could instead address them, but you haven't. Noroton 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your objections amount to, basically "Les Mis is really important" and "this article violates policy but let's overlook that and keep it anyway." Your objections have been dealt with, repeatedly, in probably thousands of AFD discussions. Otto4711 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And your response amounts to, basically, saying "I don't care how important the narrative of Les Mis is, it violates a Wikipedia rule to have an article on it, so we must delete it." Your description of my argument still wasn't answering the objection, and neither is waving your hand at other deletion discussions. If the "save" arguments here have been destroyed elsewhere then it should be easy to use those arguments from other deletion discussions here. Noroton 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay settle down, both of you. I'm not picking sides, nor will I be seen taking sides but this is a debate about the article, not a critique of each other. -WarthogDemon 04:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, each of us is critiquing arguments, not personalities, but it's not leading anywhere so I'll stop. Noroton 04:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR Keep Merging into Les Mis will really bloat the article. It's a decent offshoot from the main article. I've never pulled the IAR card, but I agree with Noroton. the_undertow talk 04:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. —Noroton 03:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or reduce and Merge - is every classic work of literature exempt from WP:NOT now? War and Peace is a huge book, but the editors have managed to keep that article to a reasonable length. I sense some intellectual snobbery here, if this was the equivalent article about the "Plot of the Harry Potter series" people would be throwing WP:NOT all over the place, even though more readers would be interested in Harry Potter and it's had a larger impact on culture. Crazysuit 05:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Crazysuit. A classic novel is no less subject to WP:NOT than a popular children's novel or an animated series. Articles that are solely plot summary are not at all encyclopedic - when it comes to fictional works, real-world impact is the most important thing to document, which an in-universe retelling of a fictional plot by nature would not have. Any impact the plot of Les Misérables has had on the real world is already documented at the main Les Misérables article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The plot summary in the main article is quite detailed enough. When Coles Notes takes over Wikipedia, this article can return. Clarityfiend 06:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Blatant violation of WP:NOT - "A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article. " Corpx 07:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So I guess bureaucratic rules are what matter, and a non-paper encyclopedia can find room for every trivial thing under the sun but not for one of the most convoluted plots in French (or any other) literature. Wikipedia has articles on every grain of sand on the beach, but the argument seems to be that we can't have another one on a pearl because, after all, just like each grain of sand, it's an individual item. Of course with Les Miserables, as with many of the large classics, there is more than one article: Category:Characters of Les Misérables: Champmathieu, Cosette, Eponine, Gavroche, Javert, Marius Pontmercy, Patron-Minette, Thénardiers, Jean Valjean, and that's just on the characters. And no room in Wikipedia for one plot article on a 1,300-page book that's been read for 140 years? Actually, if you look at some other articles on long classics, you often find the plot summaries are nonexistent (Innocents Abroad, Look Homeward, Angel), way overlong (Ramayana where the plot summary is about a third of the article, and with 100-plus other articles about it in its own category, including 56 articles on characters). Romance of the Three Kingdoms is half plot summary. These summaries should also be in separate articles. Plot summaries of important books are often important enough to belong in their own articles. And they have more encyclopedic value than most of the articles in this encyclopedia. And, no, having a plot summary in an article is not the same as Cliff's Notes or Monarch Notes or whatever other notes are out there. Those are more detailed than a Wikipedia article would be. And no, the floodgates don't open up so that we need a massive plot summary for The Valley of the Dolls because we have one for Les Miserables. Serious encyclopedias give more coverage to more important subjects. Too bad the bureaucratic rules can't keep up. Wikipedia rules allow for articles on "major" characters but constrict plot summaries. There's no good reason for that.Noroton 08:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC) (added two last sentences Noroton 08:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Well, you can certainly try to nominate a new policy that would address this situation, but AFDs would be pointless if we dont follow the policies in place now. Corpx 08:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's turn the question around: If we're just here to follow bureaucratic regulation, you don't need discussions: We can just have administrators delete. The rules and guidelines concerning plots really are seriously messed up, and I will look into changing them. But no matter how you vote, you've got to admit that we're tightening the screws hard on a valuable topic while the sheer volume of articles on unserious or miniscule topics is unchecked. Serious topics like this one deserve serious coverage. We're making Wikipedia trivial.Noroton 08:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I object to this article because of the minute detail to which it descends. Who really needs to know that Valjean's sentence was extended "three additional years for each of four escape attempts, and two more for resisting arrest following the second attempt." Who cares a sou that he stole exactly 40 of them from a boy? I am reminded of A Tale of Two Cities, which was at one time similarly bloated; it went so far as to tell the reader exactly which floor of a building a character was on at one unimportant point! Fortunately that was reined in, and so should this example. The main article describes the plot quite well and concisely. You accuse us of being bureaucrats, but they are the ones most likely to try to puff up the importance of something by loading it down with minutia. Clarityfiend 14:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with instant deletion is that these articles have usually been up for a while and a lot of users have made contributions to it. An administrator just wiping it all out just like that doesnt seem fair (to me). WP:FICT describes plot summaries as "Plot summaries are kept reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply to summarize them." I dont think it is an encyclopedia's place to go through chapter-by-chapter (or episode-by-episode) and describe the happenings of a book or tv show. If it were up to me, I would keep the above mentioned plot summaries to less than 10 sentences. Corpx 08:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm not sure that eschewing plot summaries but permitting articles on fictional characters who appear only in single works (either in individual article form or in list form) is the best way to go, regardless of the recommendations of WP:FICTION or WP:NOT. Deleting this article seems like an example of instruction creep: guidelines which were originally implemented to get fancruft off of Wikipedia are now being extended further and further, with non-optimal results. People seem reluctant to make a value judgment that yes, the plot of Les Mis deserves a place here, but the plot of cartoon/anime/kiddie book series XYZ does not, though I see how such a judgment will provoke howls of protest ... cab 10:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per cab. Greg Grahame 12:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - WP:NOT applies to every article. Les Miz is not exempt because it's been around for a long time or is popular or is important. This is nothing but a plot summary and Wikipedia policy specificially prohibits articles that are nothing but plot summaries. Otto4711 12:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and merge - WP:NOT#PLOT. It really doesn't get much clear than that, and it's policy, so it applies to every article. While Les Misérables is one of the most famous books by a French author, WP:NOT#PLOT applies to everything from The Cat in the Hat to Romeo & Juliet. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm going to have to pull an IAR keep, too. I agree with the undertow. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't say that to be true. After all, the power to veto does not make Congress obsolete. This is the first time I have ever seen IAR used in an AfD, which shows that it is a policy that most people respect enough to use sparingly. the_undertow talk 22:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. If we let this article be an exception to the plot summaries due to IAR, then all the tv show plot summary people will invoke the same rule in those articles' defense, which in effect renders the "no plot summaries" rule unenforceable. Corpx 00:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a freakin' Cliff Notes. If the article were more about critical reaction, discussion, debate, etc. regarding specific parts of the plot, I'd probably feel differently, but AFAIK, there's no policy supporting an article like this for every chapter of every piece of classic literature. If someone wants to save it, move it to a Geocities site.Propaniac 15:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless I missed the part of WP:NOT#PLOT that says plot summary articles for classic works of literature are exempt. The above arguments to the effect of "But wait, this is Le Mis, not just some movie" unfortunately have too much a taste of WP:ILIKEIT. Arkyan • (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arkyan, you've completely missed the point of WP:ILIKEIT and I suggest you reread it. That section deals with nonnotable bands and the like. Nobody anywhere disputes the notability of Les Mis. WP:ILIKEIT has nothing to do with arguing that something is of recognized excellence. The justification of the plot article is that we should treat Les Mis with an article just on its plot because this ultra-notable novel has an ultra-long plot. Feel free to be a slave to bureaucratic rules. I'm challenging you and everyone here to justify the value of the bureaucratic rule in this case, which seems to me a harder thing to do than to justify an article on the plot of Les Mis. Noroton 00:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Noroton, the undertow and Cab. If WP:NOT#PLOT results in a silly action like banning plot summaries of old books which are so long and meandering as to be almost unreadable like Les Misérables but are still part of popular culture, then WP:IAR actions much like Jury nullification here can send a message that a change is called for in WP:NOT. Emerson said "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." This is not some individual episode of a sit com or a cartoon franchise. Presenting the plot of this in meaningful detail would make the main article unreasonably long. Edison 16:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The novel is famous for--above other thinks-- its intricate plot, as is War and Peace, and Three Kingdoms. Not every long novel has such a plot, e.g. Moby Dick. DGG 16:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is the case, shouldn't the article be required to prove the notability of the plot itself through verifable references, as with every article? Propaniac 16:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per noroton and edison. This is an example of wikibureaucracy choking good meaning editors and the project.Turtlescrubber 16:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plot summaries are not generally suitable for Wikipedia, but in the case of a book as long, complex and obviously notable as Les Mis, it seems appropriate to Ignore All Rules and include one. Certain other particularly complex and significant 'classics' may be worthy of Plot Summary articles as well. Terraxos 21:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a plot summary, fails WP:NOT#PLOT by design. As for the above "keep" arguments, WP:IAR is not a free pass to do whatever you want, and does not apply to WP:NOT, which is a definition not a rule. Merging will cause bloating is a reason to delete, not to keep. It doesn't matter that people did a lot of work, people always do a lot of work. Jay32183 21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the "A" in WP:IAR stands for "All". So it is exactly a free pass to do whatever we want (after all, we can only do it here by consensus, and anything we do can later be overturned by consensus), and, since the "A" in WP:IAR stands for "All", it does apply to WP:NOT, as one of those rules included in "All" because WPL:NOT can work as a rule -- if IAR works for rules, it works for guidelines, suggestions, definitions, everything. Here's the entire text of WP:IAR, which I think is useful to review: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." Now, why would this rule be so hallowed if it wasn't meant to be used now and then? Noroton 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR is not a free pass to do whatever you want. WP:WIARM. Jay32183 23:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please review points 2, 3, 4 and 6 under "What Ignore the rules does mean. I think those all apply here. I see nothing we're doing here, in a consensus-based forum with a specific mandate for deciding on whether to keep or delete an article that would misinterpret WP:IAR, but perhaps you could point out something I missed. Noroton 00:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing you have missed is that you have not presented a valid argument for why the article should be kept and you are attempting to use WP:IAR to tell people they can't argue with you and that it doesn't matter that you are wrong. WP:IAR is not a defense to take. That is "Keep - WP:IAR" is not a valid argument. Jay32183 00:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see first paragraph labeled "Comment" below, because it addresses this point and a point made elsewhere in this discussion. Noroton 00:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I agree that some information about the plot should be in the main Les Miserables article (which I believe there already is), Wikipedia is not SparkNotes™, and that's essentially what this article is. My gut feeling is that this may be a copyvio, couldn't find anything to affirm that, tho. Rackabello 22:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copyvio of a work first published in the 1860s. Wikipedia has a template for works (in the United States, at least) published before 1923.Noroton 23:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the text of a public domain work is being copied exactly, it belongs on Wikisource, not Wikipedia. Jay32183 23:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see even quote in the plot summary article, does anyone? Noroton 23:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he's saying that it's a copyvio of Les Mis, but rather of a Cliff Notes or SparkNotes-type book that would contain such a plot summary. That may just mean that enough effort's been put in that it reads like a professional job, but that's still not grounds for keeping it. Confusing Manifestation 00:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't every encyclopedia worth its salt overlap to a degree with Cliff's Notes, Spark Notes, etc? And I repeat, those booklets are longer and more detailed than our articles. We can, you know, create the encyclopedia we want (and we have and we do, all the time). We have permission to do that.Noroton 23:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC) (add additional sentences. Noroton 23:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Since the book is out of copyright, would it justify us putting the entire text up on wikipedia and let the readers come up their own interpretation to the meanings etc? Corpx 01:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to les Miserables.--JForget 00:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Based on comments from Otto and Jay 32183, among others, my thinking on this is (I hope) becoming a bit more refined. Here's my concise, slightly retooled argument: Les Mis is not only without question notable itself, but it is so notable that Wikipedia should give it the same extended coverage that other subjects get in which we have multiple articles, some taking on aspects of those subjects. To adequately cover Les Mis, with its enormous length and convoluted plot (something it is known for) you need an extensive plot summary, one which would overwhelm the main article if included there. The fact that Wikipedia has a rule on plots should not prevent us from adjusting, violating or making an exception to that rule (describe it however you will) in a way that protects Wikipedia from becoming damaged. And make no mistake, for Wikipedia to cover Les Mis inadequately because of some bureaucratic rule, damages Wikipedia. And WP:IAR gives us a mandate to ignore rules which, in a particular case, hurt Wikipedia. (Full text: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.") We damage Wikipedia if we don't cover big subjects adequately, we improve Wikipedia when we do. Noroton 00:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hurt is a very subjective word. I dont think having plot summaries like this hurt wikipedia. I dont want to set a dangerous precedent of citing WP:IAR to keep an article you like, especially if you have the numbers. This basically would mean any popular article violating the rules would be kept as it would have the numbers to flood Keep votes based solely on WP:IAR Corpx 00:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is a bit dramatic. My own personality is of the type that does not fear setting a precedent. If everyone was afraid of such, we would have no judges on the benches. Wiki has a way of correcting itself, and I think such a concern could mute voices that share your fear. Like more cowbell, my thought is the 'really explore the studio here' and place faith in my fellow editors that an IAR keep here will not have a negative result. the_undertow talk 01:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the relation of deletion discussions to rules, Edison makes the opposite point at 16:07, 5 July, which I think is a valid point: If a rule actually is harmful, then WP:IAR encourages us to ignore it and it should be a precedent, and that may lead to changing the rule. In any event, Wikipedia rules by consensus, and if a bunch of deletion debates indicate the rule should be changed, then we have a new consensus that the rules just haven't caught up with (see point #6 at WP:WIARM and see Wikipedia:Follow consensus, not policy, neither are rules or guidelines in any way). I don't regard that kind of precedent as "dangerous" I think it's a feature, not a bug. It's one way that, corporately, Wikipedia thinks and makes decisions. You make another point: "I dont think having plot summaries like this hurt wikipedia." I think that's the pivotal issue here, because if you're right, all my arguments collapse. I think it's self-evident that not having this plot summary hurts Wikipedia, along with some others. Noroton 01:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly, it's not self-evident that not having this plot summary hurts Wikipedia, because a number of editors whose powers of observation appear to be on par with yours disagree. Otto4711 01:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're scoring debating points by exploiting chinks in my language, not addressing the issues. Your position so far is to simply ignore what's important out there in the world Wikipedia is supposed to cover. I don't see any arguments that Les Miserables is not important enough to have an article on its plot. Instead your arguments concentrate solely on applying bureaucratic rules that don't deserve to be worshiped as sacred. In fact, the delete argument here so far has simply been to apply rules, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. I've argued that we have a broader duty here than just applying rules. Noroton 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And your argument hinges upon the supposition that literary works that are "important enough" should have plot summary articles. I'm not going to poke fun at this argument but it's no stronger than Otto's arguments based on a strict reading of the rules. If anything I would say his argument is on stronger grounds - it's based on a policy that has been written and refined rather than an invented supposition. I would agree with you wholeheartedly that we do indeed have a broader duty as editors than simply reading and applying rules, but nevertheless when WP:IAR is invoked it requires sound reasoning. What is the reasoning given here? Where has it been demonstrated that "highly important" works of literature must have a plot summary so detailed that it must be split off into its own article? I don't feel that relying on WP:NOT is a slavish devotion to rules. NOT is a pretty simple guideline, after all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One does not expect to find intricate plot summaries on an encyclopedia. Arkyan • (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"What is the reasoning given here?" The reasons have peppered the discussion top to bottom: The novel is of uncontested importance, the plot, which is important in itself, is unusually long and complex and to adequately describe it takes more space than merely part of an overall article. Three or six or 10 paragraphs fails to capture enough of the substance for anyone truly interested in finding out more on the subject. What is unsound in this reasoning? We usually resolve questions of the "importance" of a subject by the standard of notability: multiple, independent, reliable sources giving substantial coverage to the subject. As I've said elsewhere in this discussion, we have those sources. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", you say, but just as important, Wikipedia is an enormous electronic encyclopedia that can cover many times more articles than a regular encyclopedia, so one DOES expect to find many, many more articles in this encyclopedia than in any other, as you well know. Train stations, lighthouses, neighborhoods, high schools -- you would expect none of these in nearly all encyclopedias, and yet all are here, consensus won't allow deletion of most of them, and it would be hard to make the case that any of these articles covers a subject of more importance to our readers than this plot summary. There is nothing particularly unencyclopedic in plot summaries per se. We have them all over the place in Wikipedia. Noroton 05:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really dont like this safety blanket. If you disagree with a policy, start an initiative to change it instead of claiming WP:IAR. I, along with 20 of my friends, could go through the items up for AFD now and just vote KEEP, per WP:IAR and we'd have "majority vote". I dont think there's a consensus here to to claim WP:IAR. Per my count, there's just 4 WP:IAR votes here, with 12 Delete votes, which is far from a consensus. Corpx 03:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let me first qualify my opinion to those who are in favor of keeping it due, in part, to deep affection for the book: Les Mis was my very first theatrical production ever, and being a part of it was an experience that changed my life. On to business: this article is a plot summary. According to "what Wikipedia is not", this is not what a plot article should be about. An article entitled "Plot of Les Miserables" should be about putting the plot into context, showing critical reception and perhaps thematic interpretation and an analysis of images and allusions to other works. Questions this article would ideally answer in order to be truly encyclopedic would be about its impact on society, its place within French history, and so on. It is fairly easy to assume that these things exist, due to the fact that this is, in fact, Les Miserables, one of the greatest works of literature in history. An extended plot summary, in this case, just isn't necessary. I would support a complete revision of the article from the ground up, including sections that I have mentioned and a much-trimmed down summary. But the currently existing iteration of the article is not encyclopedic and I support its deletion. bwowentalk.contribs 03:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On second thought, I would not support the revision of the article as I have mentioned it, because it would just be a regurgitation of what is (or would be potentially good content) on the main Les Mis article - societal impact, allusions to other works, historical significance, and so on. My opinion to delete it stands. bwowen talk.contribs 17:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Copyright is not an issue, so the standard concerns about an article being entirely plot summary don't apply, and the plot of Les Misérables is obviously highly notable in its own right. Don't be frightened of information, guys. Everyking 10:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few more comments on reading this AfD: those who are arguing for an IAR keep are conceding too much to the opposition; in fact, they don't have a leg to stand on, and it only lends their arguments false legitimacy. Second point: the main article on Les Misérables, which some are trumpeting as being fully adequate, is woefully inadequate in all respects, including its miserably short plot summary. Third point: this plot article, too, is woefully inadequate, because it doesn't cover nearly enough plot. Greatly expand and improve both of the articles, please. Everyking 03:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Noroton et al. There's no reason WP:IAR shouldn't apply here: if deleting an article diminishes the quality of the encyclopedia, it should not be deleted. The plot of this novel should be covered, and while I haven't read it, I'm inclined to believe the claims that it would be impossible to present an adequate summary that was detailed enough to cover everything important in the confines of the parent article -- the first paperback version I found has [over 1200 pages], and is a translation described in the article as abridged, which certainly suggests it has a rather complex plot. JulesH 13:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Neither the article nor this discussion (as far as I can see, unless I missed something) have provided any evidence for the notability of the plot itself, especially to the degree of minutiae included in this "summary" that makes it too unwieldy to include in the main article. Nobody disagrees that the book is notable. But is each individual action by every single character notable? A) I doubt it. B) If it is, the article provides no evidence whatsoever of that fact. Propaniac 13:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment these 5 books all discuss the plot of Les Miserables in non-trivial detail. I think that suffices to demonstrate notability of the plot per WP:N. I believe nobody has addressed it because it is self-evident that the plot of the book is notable. JulesH 15:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I'm not sure where you get the idea that this article discusses "minutiae", "each individual action by every single character". An article that includes approximately 5 words for each page of the book it discusses cannot possibly be at the level of detail you describe. JulesH 15:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm definitely not the only poster to note that the article lacks any kind of criticism or discussion of the plot. The existence of CliffNotes and the like does not reflect on that. As for minutiae:

Little Cosette, by now eight years old, is sent out to the forest by Madame Thénardier to fetch water on Christmas Eve. She is alone and afraid in the dark, when a man helps her carrying her bucket home. He takes lodging in the Thénardiers' inn, not taking his eyes from Cosette. He spares her a few punishments from Madame Thénardier, pays five francs so that she needn't work and even buys her a magnificent doll.

God knows that nobody could possibly have any sort of conversation about Les Mis without being cognizant of what precise errand Cosette was doing in the forest and how much the stranger paid Madame Thénardier. Propaniac 15:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an amusing point, Propaniac, but most of the article isn't that detailed and if the article were a third of its present length it would not contain that level of detail, yet it would still be too big to fit into the main article, so your quote is beside the point. I think your other point, that the article lacks criticism and discussion of the plot, is interesting, but the first place that discussion should appear is in the main article. Only if that discussion gets too long should it go into a separate article, possibly this one or possibly its own article. This article does not do a lot of things (for instance, if it were a ham sandwich, I could eat it for lunch, which is equally beside the point). Noroton 21:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's been no evidence presented that the much, much shorter summary at the main article does not meet the needs of an encyclopedia. Also, the dispersement of information across multiple articles should not be simply about length; by that logic, if an article gets too long we could just chop it anywhere. Articles should be generally self-contained. By creating a separate article for the plot, you are asserting that the plot is a distinct topic with its own notability, and therefore any information supporting that notability--such as proof that the plot has been discussed and referred to on its own terms--should be contained in the article dedicated to the plot. Propaniac 03:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of the plot is established, under WP:Notability as multiple, reliable, independent sources with substantial coverage of the subject of an article. The link User:JulesH already provided on 15:44, 6 July to the Amazon page shows four published sources that focus on the plot or at the very least offer substantial coverage of the plot. Therefore the plot itself, as a subject considered separately from the novel, meets Wikipedia notability standards for subjects of articles. We can certainly add a sentence or two at the top asserting notability by using those books and, I'm sure, many more sources, although I'm not really sure that helps the reader.Noroton 04:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Les Misérables article contains a more-than-adequate plot summary. An encyclopedia article covering the plot of a work of fiction should briefly describe the plot (even summarizing it usually isn't crucial, since the important thing is that people understand it's a redemption story about a criminal at its core). What the article should do is discuss the plot and its siginificance, not summarize it. The purpose of this article, however, is to simply retell the story in Wikipedia format. As such, it's not encyclopedic by itself. Leebo T/C 16:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix WP:NOT#PLOT, with which it conflicts. Articles on plots should be discouraged, but not banned. Clearly warranted for this opus and a very few others.--Mantanmoreland 19:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about the plot" Besides the books listed above, by JulesH, there are about 700 articles just in Google Scholar for Les Miserables and plot. I added seven to the article from the first few screens of results. which make it clear from the title they are discussing the book, and discussing primarily the plot--in some cases, even the plot of the book in comparison to one of the other version.DGG (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong IAR Keep per reasoning above. The rules of WP:NOT#PLOT should be amended to allow for important works with very long, intricate, and complex plots, such as this one (and War and Peace and Harry Potter, for that matter). Chubbles 21:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important works is a very subjective inclusion criteria. Anyone who wants to keep any plot summary here would argue that their article is also important. We shouldnt be able to keep/delete plot summaries based on importance Corpx 21:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, we're suggesting using WP:IAR to make an exception to a rule, so in each future deletion discussion the precedent would have to be argued anew. I don't think it's a big deal. DGG's last post, above, and his addition to the bottom of the article suggests that we could assert notability by pointing to multiple, reliable sources that themselves give substantial coverage to the subject of the plot. The Cliffs Notes, Sparks Notes and two other "Notes" books cited by JulesH at 15:44, 6 July would be a way of providing some limitation to plot summaries, using WP:Notability. How many literary works are covered by more than one of these kinds of books -- 200? 400? Maybe we should insist on something more. Anyway, what exactly is the objection to having a ton of plot summaries in this huge encyclopedia? Noroton 22:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not comply with the existing policy now and try to change it? If the policy is changed, an admin can bring this article back (or somebody can recreate it). As for the articles about plot, I would guess modern day TV shows have much much more multiple reliable sources that discuss the plot. Every article up for AFD could be justified by saying "what exactly is the objection to have this article in this huge encyclopedia" ? Corpx 22:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep—please find real-world information to complement the plot summary. For an encyclopedia, this is the only way to justify having a subarticle for the plot (as mentioned in WP:NOT). If you can show that there are plenty of sources out there covering stuff like analysis, real world legacy, and critical response in enough portions to justify a whole subarticle on the plot, then a keep may be appropriate. But in reality, this stuff (including the real-world context) is more suited for the main article, but there are always ways to toy with organization. — Deckiller 22:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to change plot summary rule at WP:NOT: I created this post on the talk page of WP:NOT: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Policy on plot summaries: ''Aux armes! Aux armes!''. It's an informal start to changing the rule, but I don't have a specific proposal because I'm not sure just how far it should be changed. Everybody feel free to put your two cents worth in over there, now or later. I've also suggested to people who watch that page that they may want to comment here.Noroton 22:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now per obvious common sense, quibble over the policy wording and whether it needs more out of universe context afterwards. This is a perfect example of blind application of rules destroying encyclopedic coverage of fiction. --tjstrf talk 23:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not encyclopedic coverage, it's only a plot summary. Encyclopedic content includes analysis and can't come solely from primary sources, which plot summaries do. Jay32183 23:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is. A basic plot summary is a core part of encyclopedic coverage of a fictional subject, with the amount of plot summary necessary being proportional to the complexity of the work. Les Mis is not only really long and complicated, but one of the more important fictional works of all time. A split-off of the plot summary is therefore completely justified for stylistic reasons as a sub-article. That, as Deckiller notes, the plot of the work is probably an encyclopedic subject in and of itself due to its influence on literature, further strengthens this. (The scary thing is that I'm having to explain this to anyone.)(WP:CIV, WP:CIV, WP:CIV...) --tjstrf talk 00:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or even just a few paragraphs on legacy/creation/critical reception of the plot. There's plenty that can be written; it's just a matter of finding the sources. — Deckiller 01:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just because a few people here on this AFD have agreed that IAR should be applied and that WP:NOT#PLOT should be amended does not at all mean that the policy should or will change. There are still dissenters on this page and there will most likely be people who disagree in the main debate. We, as editors, should not be assuming that this revision of policy will automatically become "common sense" and apply the policy as it currently stands. If it is changed after the fact, then the place of this article on Wikipedia should be reconsidered; as it currently stands, this is an article that does not have encyclopedic content and should be treated as such. bwowen talk.contribs 03:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article, as it stands currently, should probably be deleted. But, certainly, it goes without question that there has been a large body of work written about this book and it should be quite possible to turn it into something worth keeping. But potential is probably not a good enough reason to keep it, in it's current state, and fixing it will probably take more than a few days. Is it possible that we could userfy this summary somewhere for people to work on it until it's reached the point where it can be returned to article space? -Chunky Rice 00:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was moved to user space and then back to article space when done, that should preserve all of the edit history. -Chunky Rice 02:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does having this article [or a better article on this topic] help or harm the encyclopedia? We write policies; they are our own creation and we make them for the purpose of building an encyclopedia. If we cannot prioritise the latter over the former, we're fetishising style over substance, and going nowhere. Shimgray | talk | 00:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The complete original text is on Wikisource and is linked from the main article on Wikipedia. If no analysis of the plot is being made, shouldn't the Wikisource link be sufficient? Jay32183 00:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with this point. Propaniac 03:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not at all. The purpose of a plot summary is to acquaint people who have not read the work with its content. This isn't a fansite, after all. Saying "go read the book yourself" and providing a link to its text is identically useless to giving people a link to a geographic library search, and only minorly less useless than external linking to amazon.com. --tjstrf talk 03:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • How does linking to a free content library make Wikipedia a fan site? An encyclopedic plot summary does not serve to replace reading the original material, copyright or not. Have you read WP:WAF? Do you understand the Wikipedia is a real world encyclopedia? Jay32183 23:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It makes it into a fansite by assuming that the reader of the article is already acquainted with the subject, and therefore making the article useless to non-readers. Do you have no respect for great historical literature? Do you not understand that ideas can be a notable and encyclopedic subject? --tjstrf talk 18:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It does not make the assumption that the reader has already read the material. It makes overly detailed summary redundant because people who want more detail can go experience it. The value of Les Mis has no impact on the results of this discussion. This article, as written is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy and guideline. Not one keep or merge has been presented with policy or guideline in mind. Jay32183 22:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • And why on earth would they be? If strictly applying a rule, even one that is normally good, results in an outcome that you believe is harmful to Wikipedia in a specific case, you ignore it. --tjstrf talk 20:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:IAR isn't an argument. Allowing articles to consist of only plot summary is harmful to Wikipedia, because that throws away any concept of "real world" context. Since Wikibooks and Wikisource actually are what you think Wikipedia should be, your efforts may be better there. If you had actually bothered to read WP:WAF or WP:FICT as I suggested, you would already be well aware of that. Jay32183 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of course not--the original work is over a thousand pages long in most editions, and few people approach such a monumental novel without wanting to et some idea of what its about. And most are likely to need a certain amount of help keeping everything straight. The plot summary is not long because it is over-detailed --unlike some video episode summaries--it is long because it is a very complicated plot. Please do read the book, and see for yourself. DGG (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Corpx, I think you have a point. If we let in this, what won't we let in under the same principle? But the question is better addressed over at the discussion page of WP:NOT, and this discussion is about this particular deletion decision. I certainly think THIS article should stay even if the rule is never changed -- if that happens, it will simply be an exception to the rule. That might actually be the best course, and we may have as many as one or two dozen more exceptions to the rule of similarly long, intricately plotted classics. Or we could let in all plot summary articles. But that decision and discussion is mostly for the rules talk page. If this sets a precedent, I don't care, I think saving this one is worth it. Noroton 16:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Les Misérables per Masaruemoto. -WarthogDemon 04:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An encyclopedia is not a story book. Wikipedia is not Les Misérables, nor is it the abridged version. At least there's no pictures. --maclean 05:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that what we have here is a conflict between two policies. WP:NOT requires articles on fiction to not solely be about the plot. WP:SUMMARY requires sections that are too large to fit in the main article be broken out into a separate article and summarised. When the section in question is a discussion of the plot of a work of fiction, these two guidelines are in conflict. But, frankly, I think WP:NOT is wrong in this case: there is more than adequate context in the main article to justify having the plot summary article, and an exception should probably be included in WP:NOT for the use of summary style. It helps to think of the article we're talking about as only incidentally an article: it's real purpose is to be a section of the main article. JulesH 13:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't two policies conflicting or two guidelines conflicting. WP:NOT is policy, WP:SUMMARY is a guideline. Regardless, I don't think that's "just a technicality." I think the spirit of both pages discourages this kind of thing. Leebo T/C 13:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason for barring articles on plot summaries, ostensibly at least, is based on copyright concerns. It is preposterous to apply that to a work that is not copyrighted, and to apply it to a work as notable as Les Misérables is a feat of absurdity I've rarely seen matched in the three and a half years I've been frequenting deletion discussions. Everyking 04:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason for barring plot summary articles has nothing to do with copyrights. It is because Wikipedia is a real world encyclopedia and requires out of universe information from reliable secondary sources. That fact becomes much clearer after reading WP:FICT and WP:WAF. Jay32183 04:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not at all. I remember when this stuff was being pushed on us: it was all about how dangerous it is to have articles consisting only of plot summaries because, by giving away so much of the plot, we'd reduce the abilities of companies to make money off their products. Of course, now we can revise history and say that the reason was based solely on deletionism, which obviously enjoys the widespread support of the community—why else would the policy be there, after all? Everyking 05:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not a deletionist argument. I'm telling you that you have no clue what you are talking about. Articles consisting only of plot summary are not encyclopedic content as defined by multiple policies and guidelines. Copyright is but one concern of not writing lengthy plot summaries. That does not mean you can ignore the other concerns, such as writing articles from a real world perspective. The article has no real world context. By definition, an article consisting only of plot has no real world context. You need to actually read WP:FICT and WP:WAF to see that there is no valid defense for this article, and there never will be. Wikipedia shouldn't be duplicating the purpose of Wikisource. Jay32183 06:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course it's a deletionist argument. I am not arguing acronyms with you, I'm arguing logic. You can read the main article to see "real world context". But even if "real world context" on the subject existed nowhere on Wikipedia, that wouldn't be a reason to delete this content. Information about a book is as good as any other kind of information; it doesn't fall into some special category of its own by virtue of being stuff somebody wrote. You are presenting some arbitrary distinction between "This book was written by..." and "This book is about...", but when copyright is not a factor there is no purpose to such a distinction at all, except to give deletionists something else to delete. Everyking 07:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hang on. I think this discussion is getting a little out of hand. You folks seem to have forgotten that we are all here on AfD in order to contribute our individual opinions as editors to help Wikipedia and make it better. This conversation has, obviously, become quite heated; but it's because it's a discussion about which a lot of people care. But to accuse people of being deletionists, which seems to imply some kind of bad faith, is inappropriate. We're all here to improve the encyclopedia. This discussion has revealed a problem that needs to be addressed by the Wikipedia community. That's a good thing. But letting things heat up too much and start throwing around things like "deletionism" and "you have no clue what you're talking about" is counter-productive. Thus, you guys may want to consider taking a Wiki-break and forgetting about this AfD until it's over, coming back and seeing what the product is. I have my own opinion on all of this, but I would rather see this not explode into a huge conflict than contribute my own opinion. bwowen talk.contribs 12:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOT#PLOT. Also, delete per WP:OR. It looks like someone read the book and posted their thoughts as to what the book says. Drawing on personal knowledge without citing reliable sources is original research, whether or not analysis is included. Wikipedia (including Wikisource) is not a reliable source for content within Wikipedia. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either all or almost all plot summary sections in Wikipedia contain information taken directly from the book, which is, after all, the best source. I suppose you could take plot summaries from Cliffs Notes, etc., but what's the purpose? The writer did what had to be done to accomplish the goal of having a plot summary. It's pretty straightforward and it's what we do when we take information from any source. Noroton 00:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A purpose of citing to Cliffs Notes would be to comply with Wikipedia's original research policy. Had the writer complied with WP:NOT#PLOT, there would be more motivation to cite reliable sources independent of the topic. The book itself is not independent of the topic, so it is not the best Wikipedia source. See Wikipedia:Independent sources. -- Jreferee (Talk) 09:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just noticed that WP:FICT's examples section tells clearly that this content should reside in wikibooks.
And, for the record, all three of these are monumentally important books of truly high levels of literary excellence and significance. I agree with Corpx. bwowen talk.contribs 13:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. But the point of Wikibooks is not to be a repository of plot summary articles. I thought it might be an option until I looked into Wikibooks further. The Atlas Shrugged article is far more detailed than a plot summary, the Lord of the Flies is something very like the Les Mis plot article we have here, and the Of Mice and Men article is broader than the plot. The point of the Les Mis plot article is to present a summary of the plot that tries to balance depth with conciseness (if someone wants something even more concise, they can go to the plot summary in the main article). Although the Lord of the Flies Wkibooks article looks very similar, I think that's only because it's at a rudimentary stage for Wikibooks. If we send this article to Wikibooks, eventually it would become something much more vast, and we lose the plot summary as a discrete thing. Noroton 00:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding more information is a good thing, like for the Atlas shrugged article. I dont see any way we "lose" the plot summary. Atlas shrugged has a plot summary with some additional info. The plot summary is still there. Lord of the Flies looks exactly like this one, but I would judge it to be better. Corpx 04:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would also like to note that wikibooks has a "Fictional Annotations" section that's perfect for something like this. Corpx 04:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge as it concerns one of the arguably most noteworthy novels of world history that has even been made into at least one movie and one musical. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think everyone here agrees that the novel itself is notable. Corpx 04:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, the book is notable, but not the stuff in the book, right? Everyking 09:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see a difference between "the plot" and "the book." Anything you might want to say about the plot would be about the book (Plot of Les Misérables throroughly summarizes the novel's plot, it doesn't do anything like compare differences between the plots of the adaptations) and the book has an article already. That is, unless you're trying to argue that there needs to be a Les Misérables (novel) in order to give the novel its own showcase, which would be a different argument. Leebo T/C 13:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just because the book is notable does not mean what is contained in the book is notable, as notability is not inherited. Notability is being the subject of multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 19:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, and it has been pointed out that a vast amount of work has been written about the plot, meaning that it meets the notability standard with almost comical ease. Everyking 21:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • But how do you separate what was written about "the plot" and what was written about Les Misérables, the novel? Why is it necessary to separate them? Aren't they really the same thing at the core? Leebo T/C 21:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • The reason for having a separate article is to provide space for a longer plot summary. Of course, there is much to say about the book beyond just a plot summary, which is why the main article has different sections. Standard practice dictates that a short plot summary is included in the main article with a link to a subarticle going into more depth. Some people, however, feel that plot details are a unique class of information and should not be treated the way everything else on Wikipedia is. Everyking 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't think that every work of immense literary importance does considers it "standard practice...that a short plot summary is included in the main article with a link to a subarticle going into more depth." Ulysses (novel), for example, just has a detailed plot summary contained in its article. I'd say it's contrary to standard operating procedure to have a separate article to go into greater depth on plot; otherwise, WP:NOT#PLOT would be either differently worded or nonexistent.
  • Comment While I'm still in favour of keeping the article, I admit there is some logic in transwikiing it per Bwowen. JulesH 08:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the main article. Yes, a plot summary is good, but no, this one is getting overly long. >Radiant< 13:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It is in violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, but is still an important topic to have in an encyclopedia because someone may want to look up what Les Mis is about or if they do not understand what the book/musical is about they should be able to look it up in wikipedia and clarify what they could not figure alone and if not kept here (and even if it is) it should be moved to wikibooks and there should be a link in the article on Les Mis. Yamaka122 ...☑ 19:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Yes, because it's Les Mis. WP:IAR, too. If you can have endless plot summaries such as the individual episodes listed off of List of Dad's Army episodes there's room for this brief summary of one of the most complex plots ever. I have read the whole thing and have seen the New York and London productions a total of 5 times. This may need work; the policy may need work! It will be a sad day for Wikipedia if this is deleted. You'll be able to read about it in The New York Times (and think of what Stephen Colbert will say). --Jack Merridew 11:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distinguishing info about the book from info about the plot (This is really a response to Leebo above, but placed here for clarity.) Examples: the stuff in the main article about film and theatre adaptations, translations, and cultural references are about the book as a whole, because the same content could theoretically be written if the book had a completely different plot . Stuff about the plot could be something like (and I am totally making this up) "The portrayal of prostitution in the book represents a perspective that was controversial for the time..." or "Children are consistently the voice of pessimism and despair in the novel, following a tradition set by earlier authors such as..." or even "When the book came out, many critics noted its unusually extensive and detailed plot." Propaniac 12:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, I think a transwiki to Wikibooks as suggested above makes sense, and is not invalidated as a possibility simply because there aren't existing Wikibooks articles in the exact same format as this one. Propaniac 12:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with what you're saying, but in the case the article does what you say it does, I think it should either be Les Misérables (novel), which could focus on just things related to the novel, plot analysis included, while not worrying about adaptations... or, the article needs to actually get into something other than a straight up summary. Leebo T/C 13:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful. Not a copyright violation. No place to transwiki to. Does not open any floodgates. We have at least one article like this on the Icelandic Wikipedia - summarizing the plot of the Aeneid. Haukur 22:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Plot_of_Les_Mis%C3%A9rables