- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Secret history ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Multiple longstanding issues per maintenance tag. No SIGCOV, GNG not proven, long and generally crufty. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 01:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Starts as a DICDEF then turns towards the fantastical with time travel... Not really sure how we'd even source this. All I find are links for the "Secret History of..." TV show. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Category:Secret histories. This is a "literary genre" that describes certain works of fiction. The current article is very "TVTropes"-esque, and has no sourced content that could form the basis of an article. The term can be defined on the category page.
Walt Yoder (
talk)
03:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- If we don't go for full deletion, I would support this as an AtD. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 22:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I reviewed this article when it was originally tagged as a PROD. I was surprised to find such an active and long page history. Some form of this article has existed for over 19 years now. Of course, the fate of articles rests on notability and verifiability but I was surprised to find editors returning to edit this article over the past two decades. To discourage recreations, it might be better to redirect this article rather than deleting the page. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Some promising sources:
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5] (p. 600),
[6],
[7]. I'm on my phone so I haven't checked these out in detail, but I'd wager SIGCOV is easily established, though the article may need a total TNT regardless.
Sojourner in the earth (
talk)
06:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep and reduce to a stub. The topic is definitely notable, as shown by the above sources, but the current text of the article is almost completely unsourced and mostly trivia. Anyone looking for this kind of content can indeed find it at TV Tropes. But as I say, there's a real topic here, and I think it would be better to keep a page at this title for the benefit of serious researchers, even if it's only a one-line stub with a list of sources attached. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 15:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Pinging
Oaktree b,
Walt Yoder and
Liz, in case they want to revise their !votes in light of the sources provided above.
Sojourner in the earth (
talk)
16:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have journal access, but based on the abstracts, I think it is safe to assume an article could be written. But until somebody does write that article, I still prefer replacing the current content with a redirect to the category.
Walt Yoder (
talk)
18:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think this is an appropriate time to invoke
WP:TNT.
Just Another Cringy Username (
talk)
22:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with this. A stub article on a literary genre could work, but would need to be remade entirely. TheInsatiableOne ( talk) 15:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think this is an appropriate time to invoke
WP:TNT.
Just Another Cringy Username (
talk)
22:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have journal access, but based on the abstracts, I think it is safe to assume an article could be written. But until somebody does write that article, I still prefer replacing the current content with a redirect to the category.
Walt Yoder (
talk)
18:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I have removed the WP:EXAMPLEFARM. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 19:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: In the absence of any further interest, I plan to go ahead w/ a BOLD redirect after the closure of this AfD. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 22:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Due to WP:SYNTH. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:22, 15 April 2023 (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.
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Secret history ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Multiple longstanding issues per maintenance tag. No SIGCOV, GNG not proven, long and generally crufty. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 01:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Starts as a DICDEF then turns towards the fantastical with time travel... Not really sure how we'd even source this. All I find are links for the "Secret History of..." TV show. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Category:Secret histories. This is a "literary genre" that describes certain works of fiction. The current article is very "TVTropes"-esque, and has no sourced content that could form the basis of an article. The term can be defined on the category page.
Walt Yoder (
talk)
03:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- If we don't go for full deletion, I would support this as an AtD. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 22:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I reviewed this article when it was originally tagged as a PROD. I was surprised to find such an active and long page history. Some form of this article has existed for over 19 years now. Of course, the fate of articles rests on notability and verifiability but I was surprised to find editors returning to edit this article over the past two decades. To discourage recreations, it might be better to redirect this article rather than deleting the page. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Some promising sources:
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5] (p. 600),
[6],
[7]. I'm on my phone so I haven't checked these out in detail, but I'd wager SIGCOV is easily established, though the article may need a total TNT regardless.
Sojourner in the earth (
talk)
06:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep and reduce to a stub. The topic is definitely notable, as shown by the above sources, but the current text of the article is almost completely unsourced and mostly trivia. Anyone looking for this kind of content can indeed find it at TV Tropes. But as I say, there's a real topic here, and I think it would be better to keep a page at this title for the benefit of serious researchers, even if it's only a one-line stub with a list of sources attached. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 15:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Pinging
Oaktree b,
Walt Yoder and
Liz, in case they want to revise their !votes in light of the sources provided above.
Sojourner in the earth (
talk)
16:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have journal access, but based on the abstracts, I think it is safe to assume an article could be written. But until somebody does write that article, I still prefer replacing the current content with a redirect to the category.
Walt Yoder (
talk)
18:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think this is an appropriate time to invoke
WP:TNT.
Just Another Cringy Username (
talk)
22:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with this. A stub article on a literary genre could work, but would need to be remade entirely. TheInsatiableOne ( talk) 15:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think this is an appropriate time to invoke
WP:TNT.
Just Another Cringy Username (
talk)
22:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have journal access, but based on the abstracts, I think it is safe to assume an article could be written. But until somebody does write that article, I still prefer replacing the current content with a redirect to the category.
Walt Yoder (
talk)
18:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I have removed the WP:EXAMPLEFARM. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 19:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: In the absence of any further interest, I plan to go ahead w/ a BOLD redirect after the closure of this AfD. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 22:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Due to WP:SYNTH. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:22, 15 April 2023 (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.