Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inner Party (3rd nomination)

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. There is consensus that there is a notable topic (perhaps more than one) which would include some coverage of Inner Party. However, there is consensus that this topic isn't independently notable and a further consensus that this article does not offer value (i.e. concerns about OR) to such a notable topic. Thus there is no satisfactory alternative to deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Party

[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)

Last AfD (in 2014) was a procedural close suggesting merge discussion that never happened. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The term is mentioned in some sources, but generally as a plot summary element (for example, [1] mentions that the IP "employs ideology to eliminate the very possibility of thought", which sounds nice but really doesn't convey anything outside sayign that this group was the elite, the top social class of the 1984's world - and that one sentence seems to be the extent of what can be said about this group outside of plot summary/OR. This is repeated in some other works, none of which analyses this group in detail. The sources cited here are a student essay or not in-depth. Overall, I think there is potentially a notable topic (or a section) to be written about the "social structure of 1984/social classes in 1984", (we also have this diagram), to which Inner Party, the Proles (Nineteen Eighty-Four) and the worst (quality-wise) Outer Party could redirect, but there is nothing to save from the current version of those articles (WP:TNT). For the record, speaking as as a social scientists, no scholar would consider a minor element like the Inner Party worth a dedicated article, but BEFORE does show that the society of 1984 has been written about - but sadly we don't have such an article yet. The diagram is the sole useful element of the current fancrufty piece we have here and it will survive on Commons anyway, to be restored to the proper overview of the society portrayed in the book, once someone decides to write it up (maybe even I'll do it one day). Oh, and note that 90% of the Proles article is actually about the ""Social_structure_of_Oceania") - sadly it is unreferenced OR. PS. If anyone cares, Template:Nineteen Eighty-Four lists quite a few of similar fancrufty articles, many pepperred with citation requests, OR and notability warnings for years, some of which may be rescuable, but all need a review, and several should end up here (although at least the main concepts - newspeak, doublethink, 2+2=5, seem to be ok-ish). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made a reasonable case for restructuring our 1984 coverage to be more encyclopedic. Why do we need an AfD for this? It'll end up keep, merge, or redirect, and we'll all write about the potential article, rather than actually writing the potential article. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens, Hmmm, the problem is that there is next to nothing to merge from those outside the lead which is unreferenced. The topic, when written from scratch, won't benefit from the current articles at all. As I said, I may even write this up myself, but there's nothing I can use in the current versions, I'd have to delete most of it - all of it - anyway, before writing the new article. I guess SOFTDELETE and REDIRECT might be considered if I (or someone else) gets around to stubbing the article on the society of 1984 before this ends. I'll try to find time to do it over the next few days, if nothing else comes up. That said, my initial look at the sources doesn't suggest it will be an easy job, and frankly, we have a decent SOFTDELETE redirect target already (Nineteen_Eighty-Four#World_in_novel). Not that this section looks good, aargh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How many fingers am I holding up? That's the number of times that this page has been dragged here to Room 101 for a Two Minutes Hate before it is dropped down the memory hole. But we still don't love Big Brother and so the result is always Keep. That's because you need to know these things to be literate and so these tropes belong here. The details of how this is done is not important per WP:NOTPAPER. And all the other usual policies and guidelines still apply: WP:ATD, WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."
— George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

Delete. Contrary to the assertion above, Wikipedia is not TV Tropes or Book Tropes or such, and this topic fails GNG. Also, the sarcastic comment above is too much, seriously. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR not notable neither nor not sourced way too much detail outside the scope of structured analysis based on sources of 1984's society as per Piotrus's excellent analysis above. I also agree some of the comments here are getting a bit personal. It's a guideline/policy based decision we're discussing, not a vendetta against one editor and their POV regarding the entire rationale of article deletion. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As stated by the nom, while it comes up in searches, its basically only mentioned as part of wider discussions of the plot or analysis of 1984 as a whole, and does not have enough coverage or analysis on itself, specifically, that would warrant a WP:SPLIT. The basic plot elements are already covered on the main Nineteen Eighty-Four article already. I would not be opposed to a Redirect, though, if other users think this might be a useful search term. Rorshacma (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ingsoc where the subject is already covered. This is an important part of Orwell’s world but much of the article is unsourced, and it can be covered well in the article on the political system and social structure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sjakkalle, Just a technical note - I doubt Ingsoc is notable, either, and I intend to have it discussed at AfD in the near future, unless the article is improved (and I'll do at least one more BEFORE for it, of course). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is easily one of the most important works of literature, and I'm even willing to guess that there's something out there that isn't just unreliable sources. In the long run, I might recommend covering this in some sort of Glossary of 1984, as I suspect that there is more research about the overall impact of 1984 on our language than there are sources that deep-dive individually into each concept. But there is nothing reliable in this article to WP:PRESERVE, and even an article that shows WP:POTENTIAL would need to have the bare minimum of reliable sources, which this does not. I sadly agree with Piotrus that other related articles are even worse shape. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As 1984-cruft, just because the book is extremely well known does not mean every single minor plot element must have an article; that is a job for FANDOM._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:12, 28 June 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.