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 keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 09:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Winged monkeys (  | 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)

Delete There is significant plagiarism. The article is original research. The article mostly unsourced. The very few reliable sources are not reliable - just a collection of cartoon videos and personal blogs. This is a trivia collection about a character in the Wizard of Oz - belongs in fan club movie trivia book. The subject is adequately covered in other Wikipeda articles:

• Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz
• Oz the Great and Powerful
• The Wonderful Wizard of Oz
• The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)
• Wicked Witch of the West
• The Wiz
• The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (TV series)
• Wizard of Oz (character)
• The Wizard of Oz (TV series)

Wiki-psyc ( talk) 21:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 11. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep Nominator, please provide proof of the plagiarism you see in the article; it is up to you to research if a topic is notable before bringing it to AfD, and nobody can remove that material if it isn't pointed out or compared. It should also be noted that the original work it was in is in the public domain, so anything from that work can be used without any issue in regards to copyright. The article could do with reduction, but is certainly not a deletion candidate. Nate • ( chatter) 00:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I recommend evaluating the article based on its content. It is a description of a subplot in a book and subsequent movie. No context. No reliable source reporting on it. Nothing more.

While it does come up with +80% plagiarism. Based on the comment below, that does not support deletion. Wiki-psyc ( talk) 05:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment: If using the Earwig copyvio report the long history of this article makes me think the other sites are likely mirrors of Wikipedia and not vice versa. — 2pou ( talk) 03:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

That certainly seems possible. Thanks. Wiki-psyc ( talk) 05:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:TNT. While it is not implausible the topic is notable ( WP:GNG), the current article is half plot summary, half OR about similar concepts elsewhere. Classic old Wikipedia style, where people wrote what they thought they knew/was relevant and nobody gave a damn about any sourcing or WP:OR. PS. I did find a decent source for a rewrite [1], but I am still very concerned with OR in the article and still think TNT is the right thing here, with no prejudice for writing something on the ashes of this mess. Ping User:Daranios, User:Jclemens, User:BOZ, maybe one of you'd like a stab at rewriting this? Additional sources: [2], [3], [4], [5]... (ok, some of these are not SIGCOV, but even 1-2 sentences of analysis combined together do show the topic has some reception and in conclusion, I believe this is a notable topic, but the current article is beyond redemption). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep New RS now added. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 12:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ Deathlibrarian Playing the devils' advocate, have you looked at the sources I found? Particularly the first one. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I did, most of the articles are talking about individual flying monkeys in a certain context. There's very little overall commentary on the concept. Piecing together an article from discussions about indiviual flying monkeys is OR. I actually like this article, and I do think this could be a good article, it just needs more discussion on the concept - I';ll have a look and see if I can see anything Deathlibrarian ( talk) 22:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep and rewrite, perhaps it also warrants a rename to "flying monkey" as the correct common name. I find myself agreeing with 2pou's point and am unconvinced by the nominator's assertion that there is plagiarism involved, although I can see rampant original research and poor use of cited sources all over the article. While the term did originate as a fictional character concept, I discovered sometime ago that it has somehow found a renewed use in discussions about narcissistic abuse in popular psychology as "flying monkey". See for example:
• Are You a Narcissist’s Flying Monkey? from Psychology Today
• analysis/+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=my Flying Monkeys in a Corporate Environment: A Qualitative Analysis from The International Journal of Indian Psychȯlogy
• A Masters thesis titled Under the skin of narcissistic kin: A thematic enquiry into the use of online blogs by adult children of perceived narcissists

I'd say "TNT" where over 90% of the questionable content being blanked and removed from the page is warranted, but the topic itself is notable and should not be deleted from mainspace. Haleth ( talk) 12:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment An article entitled "Flying monkeys" was deleted in the last month or so. That article was based, in part, on the Psychology Today blog listed by Haleth (thanks for the link). The "Masters thesis" listed above a compilation of ideas taken from individual blogs and speaks about Flying Monkeys in connection with an Internet forums. Just information... Wiki-psyc ( talk) 14:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I don't see the relevance to this discussion, unless the motive is to poison the well. The AFD in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying monkeys (popular psychology). That article was about a concept in psychology, not the fictional characters so has no bearing on the outcome here. Why didn't you mention that the article had previously been kept at an earlier AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying monkeys (psychology)? Spinning Spark 13:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Please assume good faith. Wiki-psyc ( talk) 15:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete No RS and not really notable. As an aside, they are called "winged monkeys" by Baum in the books, not "flying monkeys". As noted above, the pop psych article on flying monkeys was deleted as unsupported by RS, so that doesn't allow this article to be bootstrapped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banks Irk ( talk • contribs) 01:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment There are lots of articles discussing "flying monkeys" I did a search on ebsco, there is a stack of them, more than on this page - *however* they are all talking about individual situations of them. There really isn't an article that discusses the concept as a whole. So it is suprising there isn't an article, *and there really should be* - there just isn't any RS that discusses the concept. You can write up individual depictions of flying monkeys, and reference those, but putting them into an article together is OR. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 10:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Well known characters in a notable franchise. AFD is not cleanup and this is not an article in a state that needs TNT. Spinning Spark 19:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • As for notability, Religion and its Monsters discusses the Oz monkeys in detail over at least five pages.
  • Monsters and Villains of the Movies and Literature devotes two pages it.
  • In "The Wizard of Oz: Parable on Populism" Littlefield argues that Baum wrote Oz with an undertone of satire on political issues of the day. He identifies the flying monkeys as an analogy for Native Americans.
  • Non-trivial coverage in "The Mythology of Oz: An interpretation
  • "Pay No Attention to That Man: Government Crimes in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz", another scholar makes comparisons to Native Americans.
  • As does "The use and symbolism of animals in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz in almost a page of coverage.
  • "A working theory of metaphor", non-trivial coverage. Spinning Spark 19:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC) – 15:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep Spinningspark has found some good sources which demonstrate notability. These are iconic villains in one of the most famous films ever made. The article requires some cleanup, but it is warranted. Thriley ( talk) 06:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep per the claims made by editors like @ Mrschimpf:, @ Haleth:, @ Spinningspark:, and @ Thriley:. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 23:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as enough sources have been found to demonstrate notability. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 20:31, 26 January 2022 (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.