Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hendley Associates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No Consensus. The strength of the delete arguments is stronger that the Keep arguments, but with a !vote of 5-3, there is no way I can close this as delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hendley Associates

Hendley Associates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article fails to show real-world notability. Hammer1980·talk 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. There numerous other articles on fictional intelligence agencies. "Hendley Associates" is a part of the plot of the novel The Teeth of the Tiger, which is a notable book. -- Voldemore (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, in-universe article is mostly plot summary already covered in the book article. Fails WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Disagree with Dhartung. This organization isn't covered as detailed enough in the book article. -- Thefreemarket (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is significant data in this article and relatively none in the Jack Ryan page or Teeth of the Tiger page. If it is to be deleted, ALL information should be incorporated into other pages.Wikistoriographer (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Wikistoriographer's point. -- Reid1967 17:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This is an inappropriate article on a plot element of a single book, reflecting absolutely no outside importance per WP:FICT. Admittedly, as the three comments above note, there is not much plot synopsis in Teeth of the Tiger. However, that isn't fixed by going into this extreme level of detail on one element of the story. Merging is not a good idea; hardly any of the info in this article would even be useful in writing an appropriate plot summary. Mangojuicetalk 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I completely disagree with User:Mangojuice. Nothing remotely inappropriate about the article. The subject matter is a major aspect of the book's plot. In fact, it IS the book's plot. -- Deaniack 19:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I sure hope the book's plot isn't the contents of this article: there's no story described there! Regardless, you may find it notable but that doesn't counterargue against Wikipedia official guidelines lik WP:FICT. Mangojuicetalk 06:01, 2 December 2007 (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.