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 both. —Kurykh 19:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Yonkers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Battle of Hope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a pair of unsourced articles recapping the story of World War Z in explicit detail. I'm not sure why the fans of this middling-successful novel have spent so much time describing this novel in detail, but these two sub-articles, composed entirely of a summary of the plot of World War Z, fail WP:NOT#PLOT blatantly. They are written in in-universe style, which could be fixed if there were some references on these subjects, but there aren't. WP:FICT would counsel merging these to World War Z, but World War Z is so choked with detailed plot summary that that really isn't practical. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm a big fan of the book, but come on. The articles are almost as long as the sections in the book they cover. - Richfife 02:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This article is no different than many other fine fictional battles articles. Of course its long; thats why it was given its own page. If it was short, you'd be saying there wasn't enough to justify an article. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 03:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There isn't enough to justify an article now. All that's here is the story of World War Z retold as though it were history. That's not okay. Wikipedia is not a repository for pure plot summary. Wikipedia articles on fictional subjects should not treat them as though they were history. Splitting off an article that is composed entirely of plot summary isn't the best way to deal with excess plot summary; instead, you should consider writing a more consise plot summary.

  Besides, the fact that other articles have these same problems is no reason that this article's problems should be ignored. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article has too much information in it to synthesize into the main World War Z article, plus, it is adequately sources and does not merely rehash the plot. As an alternative, I might suggest merging this with the Battle of Hope into a larger article, perhaps one of the battles of World War Z. --Grahamdubya 04:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The factual claims you made here are false. These articles have no information, only the story of World War Z retold in detail. They aren't sourced to anything but World War Z, which is not adequate sourcing. The only rehash the plot because they are sourced to nothing but the plot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  By that logic why aren't you trying to get Battle of Pelennor Fields deleted? Because its even more popular and you know such a deletion attempt would not succeed?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that the second stall is filthy is no reason not to clean the first. Besides, there's a great deal of scholarly coverage and commentary on the LOTR legendarium, so there's the potential that that also-bad article could be salvaged. In this case, I've done a bunch of digging for references on World War Z (see Talk:World War Z for my preliminary progress), and none of them are anything more than interviews or essay-long reviews. There's no referenced claims that could be made in these articles that aren't general claims about World War Z as a whole. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of "signification coverage by independent media" of this fictional event. Claiming these events are notable without valid sources is very subjective Corpx 04:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both per Grahamdubya and Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You say per Grahamdubya and VVVVV, but I have responded to their comments. As AFD is a discussion instead of a vote, would you care to respond to those responses? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay. I agree that additional sources beyond just Max Brooks should be added, but I think the article does a good job of laying out what happened and describing aspects of it in the Yonkers case. The Battle of Hope article definitely needs some sources or external links, but I'm confident that they can be added with time, so if nothing else at a minimum perhaps redirect or merge, so that if more sources are produced at least all the work that went into the articles thus far wouldn't be destroyed. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you respond to the claim that this is merely a detailed summary of World War Z's plot, something which has long been excluded by What Wikipedia is not?

  What sort of sources or external links do you think will be added? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The articles have sections and so do not just say "summary." Perhaps reviews that describe the battles would be good as sources. I think if reviews do exist, then they could be used to expand on the significance of the battles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that the sections aren't titled "summary" doesn't make them not plot summary. This article was written by reading the book, then summarizing it. How is that not plot summary?

  None of the reviews describe the battles, and if they did, there's no reason that couldn't be mentioned in World War Z instead. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Then, perhaps a redirect would be better than a delete, because at least that way if the articles can ever be improved, at least that large amount of content won't just be destroyed. I'll be heading to bed soon (if I can), so good night! :) --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case, this is plot summary so detailed it's better off destroyed. Besides Wikipedia's policies on handling fictional subjects, this is plot description so detailed that it borders on infringement of Brooks's copyright on his book. A redirect after the deletion of these articles would indeed be best, of course. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge whatever can be merged into World War Z (which has major cleanup issues, perhaps WP:NOT should include "Wikipedia is not a novel") and then redirect. The book itself doesn't seem to be notable enough to require branches like these no matter how important the fictional events are to the progression of the story. - RPIRED 12:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect: per RPIRED. You have got to be kidding me; this bloated article on a fictional engagement, written in an essayic style that'd fail WP:OR on a real battle, is longer than those on real life battles fought in New York state such as the Battle of Saratoga?? No doubt there are fan websites worthy of such detailed recaps, but it doesn't belong here.  Ravenswing  13:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These two articles are bloated in-universe plot summaries and lack any independent reliable sources to show that the parts of the novel made any impression in the real world. An alternative is to edit them down ruthleslly to capsule summaries and merge into the article about World War Z, but it would be easier to start over. Violates WP:FICT. We get it that fans like the novel. It is mere "Fanspew" to show us how much you like it by taking in the novel, then spewing its contents into prolix blobs as a series of articles based only on fans' impressions of the fictional work. Edison 15:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Redirecting seems unwarranted, since I don't believe that anyone other than the zealots who created these as part of the horrifically bloated World War Z article (which is in an improved state at this precise moment) would expect to find articles dedicated to the battles themselves. Propaniac 16:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in-universe fancruft; nothing to merge here. -- Vary | Talk 18:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication of notability whatsoever, afaict. SamBC 08:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:FICT, no real world notability established.--Bryson 17:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Articles seem excessively detailed. What little information of importance is contained in the articles could easily be folded into the World War Z article. -- AndrewXyz 22:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly fails WP:FICT as a plot summary -- Whpq 17:14, 16 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.