Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebel Pigs

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. Several editors agree that the content is unsuitable for a merge at this time. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Pigs

This term is not used in any analyses of Animal Farm and is made up entirely for Wikipedia. It covers minor characters, and was deprodded. Abductive (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 12:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 12:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — deproded by me; I'll have a look at the book tonight. It's been a while. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge or keep if there is nothing to merge it into The information is valid, and should be preserved. It wasn't just four pigs, but some other animals as well. There should be an article which list what everything from the book represents. Dream Focus 13:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See: Animal Farm#Characters and their possible real-life counterparts. Jack Merridew 13:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title at least is original research. Abductive (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and merged the information to [1], replacing much of the information there already, this written with far more detail. I say delete the rebel pigs article, since there is no real reason for it, there not enough information to justify its own article, and the title is misleading since other animals were executed as well. Dream Focus 22:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge obviously not enough to support a separate article. DGG (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with merging is that the title is pure invention by a Wikipedia editor. Abductive (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how does that affect merging the content? DGG (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose I created an article on Characters with moustaches in the movie Network which treated the minor characters in that movie who happened to have mustaches? No other reviewers or researchers had even sliced the movie or its characters up this way. How would you merge that? Abductive (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:R#DELETE is the normative guideline. I don't see anything there that would clearly support deleting this in lieu of leaving it as a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is pure synthesis, absent any cites of critical literary analysis in reliable sources it all needs to go. It suggests that there is more text removal needed in the main AF article as well. delete and do not merge anything back absent solid citation. ++Lar: t/c 23:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-canonical term smells like original research. Savidan 17:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Term does not appear in the book, which I re-read this week. These pigs are just a brief mention and yon article is original research. I've removed the merge by Dream Focus and have renamed the section to "The young pigs" as they were described in the book; I've pared the whole section back. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Abductive (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased to have had a reason to re-read this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:14, 23 July 2009 (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.