Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot devices in Agatha Christie's novels

Plot devices in Agatha Christie's novels

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Plot devices in Agatha Christie's novels

Plot devices in Agatha Christie's novels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Reads like a how-to (that is, how to read Agatha Christie novels). The items listed are not really plot devices, more like plot elements ("twist ending," for example.) Really a list of snippets of storylines -- the murderer was a child; the killer was hidden in plain sight; a character notices something odd, but cannot identify what it is -- masquerading as an article. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete largely per nom. I'd contend that this is an example of a well-intentioned attempt at synthesising Christie's works in a manner which is generally not a good thing to do. It's also entirely unsourced - by which I mean that the argument that these are common plot points is unsourced, not that these plot points actually occur. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for now and rewrite when there are sources--there are enough analyses of her works that this can be done without OR. DGG (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Do not delete - Sordel. I created this page, which is linked from the Plot device and Twist ending pages and properly follows the explanation in those articles. Christie is a major, and acknowledged, pioneer of twist endings and other plot devices, but clearly the information collected in this article (which has been supplemented by other editors) could not be incorporated into the other articles without unbalancing them. My hope would be that a reader interested in plot devices would in the future be able to access from the Plot device page a number of similar pages that would provide a comprehensive account of an area of literature that is of significance and general interest. Furthermore, this information is presented more succinctly than elsewhere in Wikipedia; it would be of considerably trouble to a user to assemble the same information by reading the individual novel synopses. The criticism that the article reads like a "how to read Christie's novels" is, in my view, quite wrong. If the criticism is that the article is unsourced, then there is an existing procedure for requesting references, without resorting to the strategy of deleting a great deal of accurate and correctly presented information. I would point out that Wikipedia guidelines do permit lists, and I would be prepared to see this article renamed in line with naming conventions "List of plot devices and twist endings in Agatha Christie's novels" ("there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic", Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Since narrative is not merely an element of detective fiction but the primary element, a list of this sort significantly contributes to understanding of Christie's importance as an innovator in her field. --Sordel (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a legitimate topic, but you need to clear up the original research concerns. Ironically, if your article had been about some minor character in one of the novels, or if there was a badly animated cartoon called "Agatha Christie, Girl Detective" and you had written about one of the episodes ("Robbery on the Orient Express" would be a good adaptation for kids), then you'd be protected by an "injunction" that got put in place. However, intelligent articles aren't entitled to the same type of injunction. Anyway, there have been plenty of published articles and books analyzing the work of Agatha Christie, just as there have been with other well-read authors. Because there have been plenty of such items, I cannot advise Sordel strongly enough to refer to those and start citing them as part of the article; otherwise, this is will be deleted as original research. Rather than looking at internet sites, drive down to the public library, or, even better, a college or university library. If you're afraid that you can't do that during this coming week, then copy it to your user space just in case. Mandsford (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: We don't do literary analysis here. Also, as was mentioned, part of the problem with this article is that some of the items presented are not really plot devices, for example, "A character notices something odd, but cannot identify what it is." Ditto for "twist endings." If this article were reimagined as a List of recurring plot elements in Agatha Christie novels then it might be acceptable. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This is academic but not encyclopedic material; it is original research of literary analysis. --FOo (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm always intrigued that "original research" and "literary analysis" (such aggrandising terms in other discourses) are such debased coinage here. How can it be either literary analysis or original research to list plot elements? The ban on original research in Wikipedia was not due to its being research or original but because Wikipedia should be a record of fact rather than a testing-ground for theory. There is no theoretical element to this article, and nothing contentious. If someone wanted to frame a countertheory - e.g. the murderer in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is not the narrator - they'd have a struggle. Of course, the process of approving the article for deletion will run its accustomed course, but I don't think I've read a single Wikipedia page on a novel that didn't contain more original research and analysis than this one. (Not usually a subject for authorial pride!) --Sordel (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

the description of what a characvter does in a novel can be sourced directly to the lterary source; the discussion of what are the major themes really does neede some basis other than just inspection. Butthere are dozens of books dealing with Christie, and thousands of reviews on individual novels. You really should try to incorporate some of this into a rewritten article. In this particular case, its relatively easy--any library should have at least some of this, and much of it will be on line. do your work properly, and make a better article out of it. done right, this could be an excellent example of how to write in WP about fiction. DGG (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I agree, DGG, that Wikipedia is no place for unsourced discussion of themes, but neither the word nor the concept of themes is addressed in this article: unlike the vast majority of novel articles. Furthermore, comments here seem to divide between two views: the original argument for deletion (that the article is "really a list of snippets of storylines") held that the page should be deleted because it was inconsequential, whereas subsequent commentators on this page have argued that the article involves so much analysis that it is not a contribution to knowledge without complete re-sourcing. If the article is insufficiently sourced then there is an entire community of Wikipedians that will one day get around to sourcing it; it should surely only be deleted if a page on Christie's plot devices has no place in an encyclopedia. Given that we have articles on Plot device and Twist ending, does it make Wikipedia a more complete and valuable encyclopedic resource to have a comprehensive list of examples in the work of one of the canonical writers of detective fiction? As for the offer "do your work properly, and make a better article out of it" ... this is a collaborative environment (I am not, for example, the only editor who has contributed substantive information to this article): the future of an article should not stand or fall on the willingness of any individual editor to work on it to the timetable or specifications of others. --Sordel (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

right, the "you" is meant as a general exhortation. In practice, for articles on fiction, it is very wise to source them as far as possible, and not rely on individual judgment. DGG (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with everything above, and come to the conclusion that the chalkboard does not need to be completely erased in order to write on it. Just address the concerns at WP:EDIT and close this AfD for now. It can always get renommed later if the desired improvements do not occur. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep per Jerry. Also note that many secondary sources exist talking abotu Agatha Christie's works so sourcing almost certinly exist in addition if someone wants to bother hunting them down. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:KeepVote Keep, per Jerry. When writing about novels, etc, the summarization of plots is not OR. The novel itself is the reference material. Well-written. --Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 05:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete no sources, is synthesis. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)