Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Dan Brown

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Dan Brown

Rather than a criticism of Dan Brown, this is basically a criticism of his books, each of which already have their own "criticism of" pages. How many pages did Dan Brown really deserve? Also, almost the entire page is a criticism saying that Angles and Demons and The Da Vinci Code has similar plots, considering every author that writes sequels uses a similar style, similar plot formulas, etc etc, there is nothing in this that is really unique to Dan Brown, so it does not justify its own page. A simple link from Dan Brown's page to criticisms of his books should be more than sufficient Sad mouse 16:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

*Merge - couldn't it be merged into Dan Brown? --Alex ^{(talk here)} 17:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Changed my mind, delete. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, 99% original research anyway. Just do away with it. Recury 17:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete He's a hack writer who reused the same plots, just like Thomas Harris did with Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs. However, that is an OR, NPOV opinion. Nothing here worth keeping. Fan-1967 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. There are many criticisms of this author's styles which are not related to a single book, so a central location is appropriate. I do agree that any criticism on the page should be carefully referenced to ensure that it is verifiable information from outside sources, and not just a random comment by a passing editor, but as long as that standard is met, the information is clearly notable and appropriate for Wikipedia. Indeed, on the talk page at Dan Brown, there are routinely comments from passing readers about why there isn't a "Criticism and controversy" section, since it's fairly obvious that Brown and his works have been among the most controversial subjects in the world over the last couple years. Accordingly, we are doing our readers a disservice if the biography article contains only positive information. We have to make sure that articles on Wikipedia present a well-rounded view about a subject, both positive and negative, in a fair and neutral fashion. --Elonka 17:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Please if you're going to have criticism of him, don't make a criticism section. Just put it in the article at the appropriate places. Recury 18:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge per Elonka. Hornplease 06:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Hopelessly POV, a few words maybe on the Dan Brown page, but this belongs on a message board or other forum, not an encyclopedia Guyanakoolaid 10:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• strong delete - Its merely going to be an attack page.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Not by its very nature. Its our repsonisbility to make sure it doesnt violate NPOV. Hornplease 18:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. Aside from obvious POV problems, all of this info belongs in the articles on Brown's books, and in fact it's already there. —dustmite 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete because 1) original research; 2) most material is already included under criticisms of books in individual entries. Since everyone has been delete or merge (and the non-original material is already present in other articles) is it time to delete? Sad mouse 16:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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.