Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrysis (disambiguation)
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrysis)
- 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 speedy close per consensus; page has been substantially overwritten and moved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Chrysis (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
| Advanced search for: "Chrysis" | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
- Procedural note: This nomination was originally about this version, then at Chrysis. The page was rewritten and moved during this nomination. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of WP:notability. Character in a book that does not have an article. noq (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Confused and extremely poorly written. There might be an issue about considering whether the novel itself should have an article, but no indication of notability is provided here, and even if we decided that an article about the novel would be legitimate, this page is so poorly written it couldn't serve even as a starting point of a rewrite/merge. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sometimes a character is better known than the book title. One indication of possible notability is the author's name (which I've bluelinked). I know that all the Wikipedias are different, but it's considered worthy at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_%28Lou%C3%BFs%29 and even at http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_%28Petrus_Lou%C3%BFs%29. Basically, this character IS the book, so either a rename to Aphrodite (Pierre Louÿs) leaving this as a redirect, or more simply creating a redirect from that title to this would be in order. Being badly written is no real reason for deletion - easily sorted. Peridon (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems there is an article on the book - Aphrodite: mœurs antiques under its name in French. I would think the best course of action would be to make Chrysis a redirect to that. I am not seeing much on google about this usage of Chrysis. noq (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't mind a redirect, except that it's hardly the "primary topic" of the name – there are lots of other "Chrysis" that are at least as notable – this [1][2] historical personality; the heroine of this far more notable literary work, or even this lovely genus of cuckoo wasps. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or stub. I don't know if the topic is sufficiently notable, but unless someone is prepared to read the book and verify that User:Jamesluxley's summary of it is accurate, I don't think we should keep it - he is the author of all sorts of lunatic nonsense, and I don't think we can treat a word he says as reliable. For examples of his other works, see Oikema (historical version), and his personal web site here (he linked it himself, so I'm not outing anything) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After change to disambiguation page:
- Retract deletion vote, regarding the new disambiguation page, which seems reasonable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I say keep this and keep the stub at chrysis. But you know me. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But I'll challenge you into mortal wiki-combat over the question of whether this charming and colourful little lady or that ill-fated ashen old lady should have the honour of being the primary topic. Let the edit-wars begin! Well, let me write that other stub first... Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me as well. noq (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Shall we close this? The pages have changed so much now that it seems to make little sense to keep this nomination open. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article is fundamentally different now to what was originally posted, I would agree - time for a close keep. noq (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Shall we close this? The pages have changed so much now that it seems to make little sense to keep this nomination open. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 20 August 2012 (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.