Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant County (Karin Slaughter)

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 redirect to Karin Slaughter. – bradv^🍁 16:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grant County (Karin Slaughter)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has zero references and only the barest of real-world information, and is written in an entirely in-universe style, to the point that I had to move it from Grant County, Georgia. The novel series named under this title is likely notable from GScholar search, but the fictional location is not, and the article would need to be rewritten from scratch to be encyclopedic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rework and improve. After a very cursory glance at sources I agree with LaundryPizza03 that the fictional location probably is not notable, but that the novel series very likely is. Actually, as the article is now written is much more about the novel series than the location. The only thing necessary to reflect this would be to change the one introductory sentence (and possibly categories). Otherwise it suffers from a common problem of articles about works of fiction: It contains mostly plot summary, and too much of it, and no analysis. However, plot summary is one required piece of a good article about a novel series. So the plot summary would need to be shortened and analysis added. This would be no problem, as there are secondary sources for this e.g. in the Google Scholar search LaundryPizza03 has already linked. So I see no reason at all why the statement "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." from our WP:Deletion policy should not apply here. Daranios (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with the above . I imagine the series is notable; the current article is hardly about the locale and all about the books. Needs a savage haircut.TheLongTone (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have administered one. The character sections were not salvageable. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATD. Easily improved. Worst case: redirect to section in author's page. pburka (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or repurpose into the series set in the same fictional location. Looking at the author's article and this one, there's clearly room for a series overview, which this seems to function as. Jclemens (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karin Slaughter for now, given the terrible state of this. Not even a single ref is cited. No objection to soft delete (no need to hard delete history), and of course if someone finds sources to show that the series is notable, this can be restored. But in the current form this is failing WP:V and WP:GNG, and we can't assume that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Find them, add them, or otherwise this should wait for someone to do so as a redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Why not look at the linked Google Scholar search yourself? But very well: The American Novel in the 21st Century has a 15 page chapter comparing the Grant County with the Jack Reacher series ("analyzes how questions of gender motivate formal and thematic innovations in crime fiction"); The Readers' Advisory Guide to Mystery, p. 65, has a paragraph on Karin Slaughter which focusses on the Grant County series; Feminist crime fiction and female sleuths, p. 267 bottom to 269 is to a significant part about the series; The Polish Journal for American Studies Vol. 13 has two papers which contain some sentences of analysis on the Grant County series on pages 171, 309, 311, 313/314 (and a lot more specifically about Blindsighted); should be enough to write a decent-sized analysis section, and support some of the plot summary. And that's not yet a search of any of the other channels which should be done as WP:BEFORE. Daranios (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Excellent. If anyone adds this to the article, I'd be happy to change my vote to keep; otherwise I'd be fine with draftification. The concept may be notable, but the article should show this; right now we sadly are dealing with a poor fancrufty plot summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: are you aware of the multiple extant articles on books in this series? What do you suggest should be done with them? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@力 If they don't meet WP:NBOOK, the best outcome as you suggest would be to merge them here, while adding a section on the reception for the series. Anyone will volunteer to do this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're at 7 days, ideally the AfD closer would do some merging. There's a plausible argument for a (better) article on the series separate from the author's article, I don't see a good argument for articles on books in the series. I don't see how stand-alone per-book articles are justified. Also the DAB should be Grant County (book series) in my estimation. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fate of articles about the individual books is beyond the scope of this discussion here. Blindsighted currently redirects to Karen Slaughter, and probably should better redirect here in case the article will be kept (and perhaps it would actually be helpful to merge the one out-of-universe sentence from the version before redirect here). For the others that have an article it should be looked at individually IF they actually meet WP:NBOOK, and not sweepingly decide this here: We have only so far looked if there are sources for the series, and only scholarly sources at that. As mentioned, e.g. The Polish Journal for American Studies Vol. 13 has more on Blindsighted than the series. Also, I would expect that there are book reviews for the individual books out there, so possibly the individual volumes have even more probability of being notable than the series. (And please don't accuse me of arguing based on WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, I am just saying that noone did a proper WP:BEFORE search on the individual volumes so that we cannot say one way or another). Daranios (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the blatant hype ("Is this somehow related to the events in Sylacauga all those years ago?") makes it read as a back-cover blurb, not a neutral summary. The page is so bad I want to agree with Piotrus, but I also want various pages on individual books in the series to redirect here (Indelible has the same summary and little else). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the author. The fictional setting definitely isn't notable. While it has now been repurposed, there's nothing showing the series as a topic has potential at the moment, but it can always be split out if sources are brought forth. TTN (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN: How is there "nothing showing the series as a topic has potential at the moment" in light of the secondary sources discussed above? Daranios (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The author's article is pitifully small, so there is no reason to think it needs an article at this time. If the sources provide undue weight in the author's article, it can easily be split out. TTN (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN: I personally would prefer having two separate not-too-long but non-stubby articles about these related but distinct topics. But that aside, isn't what you say an argument for merging the trimmed plot-summaries we now have, rather than redirecting? Loosing that content through a pure redirect makes Wikipedia smaller, but the "pitifully small" Karin Slaughter article not one iota longer. Daranios (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2021 (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.