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 redirect to The Tactful Saboteur. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau of Sabotage[edit]

Bureau of Sabotage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely plot summary and fails WP:GNG, was deprodded by a user who thinks it can be merged to The Tactful Saboteur. The deprodder added two merge tags, one to a nonexistent page, but did not open a merger discussion. I disagree, as there are no references. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Politics. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per my PROD, this is an unreferenced piece of WP:FANCRUFT, fails WP:GNG, WP:V, etc. I am suprised that User:DGG makes us spend (not to say waste...) our time through discussion here, and a merge suggestion (which they didn't even elaborate on per talk). Those are not best practices. Merge what? There are not footnotes. Merge ORish fancruft? Strong no. If you want to rescue anything here, please start by finding sources and improving this. PS. Hint: rather than waste time here, I suggest that anyone interested in works of Herbert tries to improve The Tactful Saboteur, which doesn't look very good right now. Neither does Whipping Star. See The_Dosadi_Experiment#Reception for bare minimum needed to prevent those works from ending up here next. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nothing to merge, just synthesis, fancruft, and unsourced content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect without prior deletion per WP:ATD-R, to allow sourcing and merging from this content without future admin intervention. Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jclemens Redirect where? I do support SOFTDELETE and redirecting, but we need a target. The Tactful Saboteur? Ok, but that article risks being deleted itself unless someone improves it... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Searching for sources, both under its full name as well as the shortened "BuSab" name, turns up mentions in plot summaries and reviews of the novels and stories the group appeared in, but nothing in-depth on the agency in specific that would warrant a split. The only sources listed in the article are the stories and novels themselves, each of which already has its own article with a plot summary describing the group's role in them. A redirect to The Tactful Saboteur, the agency's first appearance, would probably make sense, but a merge is not really needed as that article already describes the plot information regarding the agency already, and there is no sourced non-plot information to move over. Rorshacma (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to The Tactful Saboteur. I deprodded it because there seemed to be an alternative to deletion. I probably should have explained on the talk p, but I thought it obvious, and I see some others here agree with me, tho they are for some reason !voting delete instead of redirect or merge. while ayign ti can beredirected or merged. I did not carry out the merge myself because I do not know the works involved, and I would consider it foolhardy to try to rewrite content about a work I did not know. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or second choice redirect without deletion) Passes WP:GSN, as the Beureau receives coverage in abundant independent WP:RS, such as the near 50 year old book "Dune and other works" and in sources published this last few years like "Living in Technical Legality" by good Kieran Tranter. As most of the coverage in the truly independent sources admitedly lack depth, as I see two former Arb favour redirection, I'll add that The Dosadi Experiment is probabaly the best target. Herbert has some interesting observations on the Law in that book, which could easilly apply to deletion policy and how it can be twisted for the uneccessary destruction of valuable knowledge. "The Law is a blind guide, a pot of bitter water. The Law is a deadly contest which can change as waves change." Though I'm sure he'd make an excpetion for sensible parts such as WP:Before. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @FeydHuxtable: Please provide specific sources that support notability, WP:SOURCESEXIST is not enough. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or selective merge to The Tactful Saboteur. The latter has issues, but there appear to be better sourcing options to fix it than there are for Bureau. Star Mississippi 13:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Tactful Saboteur as WP:ATD and as a plausible plot element/search term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:04, 16 May 2022 (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.