- 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. Yunshui 雲 水 09:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The Shop (Stephen King)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- The Shop (Stephen King) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence this fictional entity passes WP:NFICTION/GNG. WP:FANCRUFT. King's works have some decent scholarly analysis but this minor element of them does not seem to have much going for it beyonda plot summary here and there. No referenced content to merge outside a single sentence. No singular good redirect target (topic briefly mentioned in several works of fiction). Prod has been declined with a suggestion of redirecting or merging, but I don't see a good redirect/merge target. An in either case the only referenced content doesn't seem related to any of the works mentioned anyway. Suggestions are of course welcome. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 04:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 05:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per
WP:NEXIST. There is a lot of non-fiction literary criticism written about King's work, and the Shop is covered in these books. Here are four examples.
- The Complete Stephen King Universe: A Guide to the Worlds of Stephen King by Stanley Wiater, Christopher Golden and Hank Wagner, St. Martin's Press (2006)
- The Beginnings of Stephen King by Claudio Hernández, Babelcube Incorporated (2018)
- Screening Stephen King: Adaptation and the Horror Genre in Film and Television by Simon Brown, University of Texas Press (2018)
- Modern Critical Views: Stephen King by Harold Bloom, Chelsea House (1998)
- These sources do involve some explanation of the plot, because that is how writing about fiction works; you have to discuss the plot in order to show the element in the larger context of the narrative. I'll put these on the article in a Further reading section so that editors who want to improve the article can use these sources. --
Toughpigs (
talk)
05:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I don't see any non-plot analysis here outside a sentence or so like "The Shop is King's allegory for secretive government". Other than that it is still pure PLOT, and as such, those sources fail the in-depth requirement of GNG. But I am all for saving such content - if you or anyone else can either add a reception/analysis section that has a decent paragraph of content, or, since AfDs are "not for fixing" (gosh, terrible if we actually improve an article...), provide quotations from sources here that show there is more than one-sentence analysis of this out there, I'd be happy to consider withdrawing this. Just don't say 'there are passing mentions in plot summaries' out there. That's not enough. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
06:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. You shouldn't use AfD as a way to threaten deletion so that someone else writes an article to your satisfaction. Sources exist, and per
WP:NEXIST, the subject is notable. --
Toughpigs (
talk)
07:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Your sources here are WP:GOOGLEHITS. I already said above you don't have to improve this article, just quote from your sources parts that are not a PLOT summary. Nothing to challenging, is it? Just show good sources exist. So far you have not done so. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. You shouldn't use AfD as a way to threaten deletion so that someone else writes an article to your satisfaction. Sources exist, and per
WP:NEXIST, the subject is notable. --
Toughpigs (
talk)
07:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I don't see any non-plot analysis here outside a sentence or so like "The Shop is King's allegory for secretive government". Other than that it is still pure PLOT, and as such, those sources fail the in-depth requirement of GNG. But I am all for saving such content - if you or anyone else can either add a reception/analysis section that has a decent paragraph of content, or, since AfDs are "not for fixing" (gosh, terrible if we actually improve an article...), provide quotations from sources here that show there is more than one-sentence analysis of this out there, I'd be happy to consider withdrawing this. Just don't say 'there are passing mentions in plot summaries' out there. That's not enough. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
06:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Completely original researched article that fails WP:GNG, nothing to merge due to having no references cited. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 06:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC) ( edit conflict)
- Delete - The sources shown above have very little coverage that isn’t just plot summary. And the one or two sentences that try to provide any kind of analysis is not even close to being enough to establish notability or support an article. It could possibly be used as a redirect to Firestarter (novel) - while it did make a few brief appearances and mentions in other King works, Firestarter was the book in which it was the focus. But, I’m not sure how useful of a search term this actually is, so I’m fine with straight deletion as well. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - The is pretty much nothing in the above sources that could be added to the article. WP:N clarifies "significant coverage" for a reason. The simple act of being mentioned in a book that itself is a reliable source means nothing if it says nothing about the topic. This article has nothing to stand on currently. TTN ( talk) 23:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - I also fail to see why we should keep this. (per comments above) GizzyCatBella 🍁 03:35, 14 March 2020 (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. Yunshui 雲 水 09:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The Shop (Stephen King)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- The Shop (Stephen King) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence this fictional entity passes WP:NFICTION/GNG. WP:FANCRUFT. King's works have some decent scholarly analysis but this minor element of them does not seem to have much going for it beyonda plot summary here and there. No referenced content to merge outside a single sentence. No singular good redirect target (topic briefly mentioned in several works of fiction). Prod has been declined with a suggestion of redirecting or merging, but I don't see a good redirect/merge target. An in either case the only referenced content doesn't seem related to any of the works mentioned anyway. Suggestions are of course welcome. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 04:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 05:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per
WP:NEXIST. There is a lot of non-fiction literary criticism written about King's work, and the Shop is covered in these books. Here are four examples.
- The Complete Stephen King Universe: A Guide to the Worlds of Stephen King by Stanley Wiater, Christopher Golden and Hank Wagner, St. Martin's Press (2006)
- The Beginnings of Stephen King by Claudio Hernández, Babelcube Incorporated (2018)
- Screening Stephen King: Adaptation and the Horror Genre in Film and Television by Simon Brown, University of Texas Press (2018)
- Modern Critical Views: Stephen King by Harold Bloom, Chelsea House (1998)
- These sources do involve some explanation of the plot, because that is how writing about fiction works; you have to discuss the plot in order to show the element in the larger context of the narrative. I'll put these on the article in a Further reading section so that editors who want to improve the article can use these sources. --
Toughpigs (
talk)
05:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I don't see any non-plot analysis here outside a sentence or so like "The Shop is King's allegory for secretive government". Other than that it is still pure PLOT, and as such, those sources fail the in-depth requirement of GNG. But I am all for saving such content - if you or anyone else can either add a reception/analysis section that has a decent paragraph of content, or, since AfDs are "not for fixing" (gosh, terrible if we actually improve an article...), provide quotations from sources here that show there is more than one-sentence analysis of this out there, I'd be happy to consider withdrawing this. Just don't say 'there are passing mentions in plot summaries' out there. That's not enough. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
06:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. You shouldn't use AfD as a way to threaten deletion so that someone else writes an article to your satisfaction. Sources exist, and per
WP:NEXIST, the subject is notable. --
Toughpigs (
talk)
07:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Your sources here are WP:GOOGLEHITS. I already said above you don't have to improve this article, just quote from your sources parts that are not a PLOT summary. Nothing to challenging, is it? Just show good sources exist. So far you have not done so. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
-
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. You shouldn't use AfD as a way to threaten deletion so that someone else writes an article to your satisfaction. Sources exist, and per
WP:NEXIST, the subject is notable. --
Toughpigs (
talk)
07:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I don't see any non-plot analysis here outside a sentence or so like "The Shop is King's allegory for secretive government". Other than that it is still pure PLOT, and as such, those sources fail the in-depth requirement of GNG. But I am all for saving such content - if you or anyone else can either add a reception/analysis section that has a decent paragraph of content, or, since AfDs are "not for fixing" (gosh, terrible if we actually improve an article...), provide quotations from sources here that show there is more than one-sentence analysis of this out there, I'd be happy to consider withdrawing this. Just don't say 'there are passing mentions in plot summaries' out there. That's not enough. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
06:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Completely original researched article that fails WP:GNG, nothing to merge due to having no references cited. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 06:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC) ( edit conflict)
- Delete - The sources shown above have very little coverage that isn’t just plot summary. And the one or two sentences that try to provide any kind of analysis is not even close to being enough to establish notability or support an article. It could possibly be used as a redirect to Firestarter (novel) - while it did make a few brief appearances and mentions in other King works, Firestarter was the book in which it was the focus. But, I’m not sure how useful of a search term this actually is, so I’m fine with straight deletion as well. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - The is pretty much nothing in the above sources that could be added to the article. WP:N clarifies "significant coverage" for a reason. The simple act of being mentioned in a book that itself is a reliable source means nothing if it says nothing about the topic. This article has nothing to stand on currently. TTN ( talk) 23:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - I also fail to see why we should keep this. (per comments above) GizzyCatBella 🍁 03:35, 14 March 2020 (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.