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 merge to Animal Farm. There are a lot of Delete !votes here, but since the AfD was started there are probably now enough sources for a section in the parent article. Merges can always be reversed. Black Kite 12:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Windmill (Animal Farm)[edit]

Battle of the Windmill (Animal Farm) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This page on its face violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). It is only plot summary, and cites no out-of-universe sources. It has been tagged with merge for over a year, but the plot summary in that article is already adequate. Savidan 02:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent, outside sources about this specific plot element means it can adequately be covered in the main article. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unencyclopedic. I am sure that the scholarly analysis of Animal Farm has touched on this section of the plot. But carving it out of the book and putting it on display is just not right. Abductive (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Plot summary with no encyclopedic value. Hypothetically, Critical Analysis of the Battle of the Windmill could (with appropriate sourcing of course) merit an article - but Battle of the Windmill (Animal Farm) is as crufty as it gets. A good scene from a good book does not automatically make a good - or even acceptable - article on an encyclopedia. Badger Drink (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd say redirect to Animal Farm as a vaguely likely search term. Also the material is then available in the history in case anyone does get around to merging it. Granted they may not think to look there, but I don't see that we've anything to lose by keeping the redirect. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to merge or keep or whatever per A Nobody's work on the article. As DGG says, whether to merge is a separate and less permanent question than AfD's purpose. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Battle of the Windmill has a hatnote to Animal Farm, so a redirect is unnecessary. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to people looking at this nom, please note that there are two more Animal Farm articles nominated for deletion in a group nomination with several non-Animal Farm articles as well, on this day's AfDs. 76.66.192.91 (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With parenthetical dab text, an unlikely search term. No content worth merging (it's plot rehash that looks like a lame Sparknotes entry). --EEMIV (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as article is no longer only plot summary and contains multiple secondary source analysis of this important aspect of a work studied in schools, i.e. per ongoing improvements, which means that in unequivocally meets both WP:V and WP:RS and moreover cannot be said to fail the heavily disputed WP:NOT#PLOT. At worst, article now contains mergeable content per WP:PRESERVE. In any event, is undeniably notable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you added about the allegory can be merged into the Animal Farm article. There are many allegorical interpretations of AF; it would make more sense to talk about them as a whole rather than to write an article about each plot element of the work and say what various people think it represents. Savidan 23:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to a merge, as many of these sources discuss this battle alongside the Battle of the Cowshed in terms of their parallels, although a few actually do devote a solid paragraph to just this specific battle, but per the GFDL, we cannot delete this article's edit history in such a case. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of this original research will solve the GFDL "problem". Abductive (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Original research"?! Please be honest when commenting in AfDs. The article has multiple citations to published books. And any Google Book search demonstrates that even more such sources exist. Out of universe analytical commentary found in secondary sources that were published is unoriginal research. Deletion would in such a case would be anti-wikipedic. Sant Singh Bal describes the battle as one "of the important episodes which constitute the essence of the plot of the novel."^[1] Scholars have offered two interpretations of what the fictional battle represents, one seeing the book's events as a parallel to the French Revolution and the other as a parallel of the Russian Revolution. Harold Bloom writes that the "Battle of the Windmill rings a special bell: the repulse of the Duke of Brunswick in 1792, following the Prussian bombardment that made the windmill of Valmy famous."^[2] By contrast, Peter Edgerly Firchow and Peter Hobley Davison consider that in real life, with events in Animal Farm mirroring those in the Soviet Union, this fictional battle represents the Great Patriotic War (World War II^[3]), especially the Battle of Stalingrad and the Battle of Moscow.^[4] All of the above constitutes out of universe commentary by authors other than Orwell. Citing them represents tertiary research, as these authors were the ones who conducted original research in their published books. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is original research to extract a fictional battle from a book and analyse it alone. Show that this is done by scholars, and I will take back the OR claim. Abductive (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just cited THREE different scholars among many more who analyzed the battle and compared it to other real world occurences or who noted why this battle is an important aspect of a literary classic studied in numerous schools for decades. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BUT they analyzed it in context. Note that I predicted this response in my first comment here, and ended it with "But carving it out of the book and putting it on display is just not right." Abductive (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They analyzed the battle's real world comparisons as well as significance within this remarkably important work of fiction that students and scholars alike would indeed expect to find in such a comprehensive reference guide as Wikipedia, hence why editors have created and worked on this article and why readers have come here to read it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why we treat it within the article on the book. The battles are, like real battles, not important without a context. Without a doubt, this is not the right way to arrange an encyclopedia; it is as dishonest as the least publishable unit. Abductive (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which would mean at worst a merge and redirect with edit history intact and to suggest that even real battles are not important as stand alone articles runs counter to encyclopedic tradition as look at Britannica and you will indeed find battles as individual articles that are not just part of the articles on the wars. "The battles are, like real battles, not important without a context," you write. I am for once actually astonished and hope you are not serious, because to in effect suggest that we should not have Battle of Waterloo, because we already have Napoleonic Wars, as if Battle of Waterloo does not have sufficient context on it its own is not only downright absurd for even a paper encyclopedia like Britannica, but even more so for us. In any event, this article under discussion here provides the context, i.e. it is part of one of the maybe thousand or so most influential and significant novels of all time, is organized coherently into sections that detail the plot, explain its importance within the novel, and then how scholars have compared the battle to various real world battles either in the French Revolution or World War II. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many battles have been analysized in books, journal articles and newpapers. The Battle of Waterloo has a context, and to properly treat it it needs its own article. You have not demonstrated that this fictional battle is anaylized independently of the work in which it occurs, nor that it needs to be treated outside it main article. What I do know of your behavior is that you will argue for the saving of any fictional topic, without regard to the rules of this encyclopedia, length, context, usefulness, page views or any other reason other than saving fictional articles. Abductive (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sources have you looked for and where? What efforts have you made to improve this article? What efforts have you tried at merging the content? This battle of the Windmill has a clear context and to treat it properly, it should have its own article. You have not demonstrated any valid reason why at worst we would not merge and redirect this article, but are being consistent with your indiscriminate approach to fiction related Afds that reflect neither familiarity with the topics under discussion or any efforts of following WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE as a contrast to the rest of us in these discussions who are discriminate and argue to keep ones like this that are obviously worth including in some capacity and to delete ones that are not such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Nog or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends), which do not merit inclusion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobody has expressed willingness to accept a merge and Abductive's comments about context seem to suggest (forgive me if I'm wrong) that they would also accept one. Can I therefore suggest that this argument, which is getting rather unpleasant and in any case is not really a matter for AfD, be put to rest? Olaf Davis (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its too big to roll back into the main article, it is no different than a character summary of a Simpson character. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or one could say it is no different than the Battle of Hogwarts which has been redirected to another article. Abductive (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or we could say that this also was wrong. Fortunately a merge can be reversed, and after showing what the consensus is here, we should get back to that one. DGG (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and discuss whether to merge or a keep. We do not delete articles because they violate the MOS, or there would be essentially zero content in Wikipedia--and that--incredibly-- seems to be the basis of this nomination. In general I think the plot of a fiction should be kept together and is more understandable that way. Even when there are conventional sources for notability, that is still an editorial decision. But it's an editorial decision. Its not a question for AfD. And no reason is given why there should not be a redirect--for there is no plausible reason. I am not altogether sure of the wisdom of this group of nominations. First, because they involved too many elements of too many different works. Second, because the items nominated together in the combination nominations are not in general of the same notability. Third, because they focus on major fiction where there is so much less important oversplit junk to deal with. fourth, because they make no attempt to follow BEFORE and look for sources, and worst, because they do not consider the possibilities of merging or redirecting. I was about to say that this crusade disrupts ongoing efforts to achieve a compromise, but, rather, perhaps the appearance of these AfDs might illustrate the urgent need for a stable compromise. DGG (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Notable element of notable work.

“

some articles are more equal than others

”

nb: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Cowshed running simultaneously. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Having taken the time to actually read the article, I say keep. The writer of the book says in another novel of his, that it was one "of the important episodes which constitute the essence of the plot of the novel." Dream Focus 13:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge any relevant information into the main article. The main article is currently in very poor condition, and it certainly would benefit from more real world focus. If the main article becomes extremely long, and there is too much real world focus on this one element, it can be split again. TTN (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - undue weight on the topic as it stands now... and the main article could use the good parts of this article to repair it, as it has too much original character synthetic analysis and not enough scholarly (i.e. cited) analysis. ++Lar: t/c 23:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Animal Farm - good material that should not be lost. Artw (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it ironic that the only material worth merging was added after this article was nominated. Would be more efficient to just improve the main article but if a "rescue" is what it takes then so be it. Savidan 18:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep merger can be discussed separately, but there's plenty for a standalone article now. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2009 (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.