Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Canon of Sherlock Holmes

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 keep. - Bobet 17:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Canon of Sherlock Holmes

Hm. Well, I don't want to use this word, but I'm not sure how else to describe it. Original research. Perhaps some of the summaries of the "extracanonical" works can be incorporated elsewhere? -- Merope ^Talk 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Reads like an original research essay. Wickethewok 18:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep This is a notable topic and the subject of study for more than a century. Whole books (such as The Uncollected Sherlock Holmes) have been written about the semi-canon material written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle but not considered part of the core set of Holmes stories. The article does have somewhat of an essay feel to it due to the signed "conclusion" section, but that's a case for cleanup, not deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment According to the Canon (fiction) article, the concept of a literary "canon" originated with Holmes scholars attempts to differentiate the core Holmes stories from the many pastiches, parodies, etc. In other words, Holmes was the first fictional work to be discussed in terms of having a "canon". This further strengthens my already-ironclad opinion that the topic is worthy of an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Blank and Start Over The subject itself is noteworthy, so I have no problem with that, but I'm not sure of this article. I'd suggest it being part of the main Sherlock Holmes article, but that might take up too much space, so it would be best to keep seperate.
• Keep for now and cleanup Desperately needs referencing, but as per Starblind, I'm going to give the creator the benefit of the doubt for now. Cleanup, reference, and remove the essay-like "conclusion". If it still lacks references in a couple of months, reconsider for deletion. I don't think this is fancruft by the way. It's far from sufficiently obsessively detailed over trivia. Bwithh 19:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but get rid of the speculative stuff. Stev0 15:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Andrew Lenahan, especially his note about the historical nature of discussing Holmes' canon. This article needs clean up but there is enough there worth salvaging. Agne 07:26, 8 October 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.