Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapters in Watchmen

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 5 deletes and 3 keeps. The keep rationales were not given as much weight because they were based on supporting the content of the article and not Wikipedia policy.--Jersey Devil 04:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chapters in Watchmen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete because, as the article itself states, it's nothing but a "detailed descriptions of chapters in the graphic novel Watchmen." That's it, just an abridgement of fiction. This violates WP:FICTION and WP:NOT, not to mention copyright law, as there is no fair use justification for copying story elements without a transformative, real-world informative context. Watchmen, a featured article, already contains a sufficiently descriptive summary of the graphic novel's story, so there is nothing that needs to be merged. Postdlf 02:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to WikiBooks, as chapter by chapter summary is appropriate there like for Lord of the Flies Corpx 02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Is this what Wikibooks is for? The description doesn't match this - wherever you'd move this too (at least within Wikimedia) you are going to run into the problem that over-long plot summaries can be considered as infringing copyright. (Emperor 02:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • I dont think they're too keen on sources over there. The Lord of the flies recap is even listed on their "Departments" section. As for the copyrights, I'm not too certain. Somebody with more knowledge of the issue should answer that Corpx 03:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The wiki entry says "is a wiki for the creation of free content books" and I wouldn't want to vote for something that is going to run into issues with other wikis. (Emperor 03:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
        • Just want to say Delete if closing person does not think transwiki is appropriate Corpx 00:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This information is largely covered within the main Watchmen article. There isn't a need for an article that covers it a second time. Stephen Day 03:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stephen Day. WesleyDodds 05:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 20:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Redundant Artw 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Not redundant: Watchmen has a complex formal structure on both the visual and verbal levels, and this article explicates it (at least, it is heading in that direction), whereas the main Watchmen article just mentions it. The useful bits are pointing out the relevance of cross-references etc, rather than the plot summaries. PaddyLeahy 20:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. good summary style-Peregrine Fisher 00:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - being 99% plot it violates WP:FICTION and WP:NOT and infringes copyright. There is also nowhere I think it can be transwikied too (because the copyright issues would arise anywhere within Wikimedia) but might be worth saving for a fan site (although they probably already have this covered). (Emperor 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Weak keep — unlike Chapters in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, I think that this article may have room for sufficient out-of-universe context and sourced critical commentary to justify its existence independent from the main Watchmen article. Several of the sources used for the featured article Watchmen have specific commentary on individual chapters. Another possible source is the recent article in Wizard magazine in which folks like Ed Brubaker and David Goyer discuss Watchmen, going into some detail about its narrative structure and critically discussing individual chapters. If the article is deleted, I'd recommend that it be userfied so that the contributors can add relevant sources and re-submit. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 August 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.