Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clanton, Mississippi

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 John Grisham. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clanton, Mississippi

It's not actually very notable, and though I cherish a deep admiration for the town and its inhabitants, there's no possibility of expanding the article without going into the realms of OR. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fictional town. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article is needed for at least one purpose—to answer the sometimes asked query, "I wonder if that is a real town." Alternatively, merge and redirect to an appropriate target (probably John Grisham). Do not delete outright. Newyorkbrad 18:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirecting to Grisham is OK; it's not worth having an article just to say that it's fictional, though I did actually believe that it was real until I first came across the article this morning! :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John Grisham. There are a few references in book reviews and Grisham profiles but not much about the town that isn't plot summary. --Dhartung | Talk 18:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dhartung. mceder (u t c) 19:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care what happens, but I would personally find the purpose of the article defeated by redirecting it to John Grisham; it really makes no sense. What harm is this article doing by being a stub? The reason I wrote the article was because, like Porcupine, I didn't know if the town existed - so I looked it up and wrote what I found down. That this is the setting for more than one best-selling Grisham novel indicates that many will ponder the same question that we did. The redirect is probably less helpful and more confusing than just deleting the article outright. Johnleemk | Talk 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~RedirectRename to Clanton (John Grisham)~~Keep and Rename to Clanton (John Grisham), as per Derry, Maine--SarekOfVulcan 12:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How would that help? It'd still have its own article.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So does Derry. If it's a fictional setting in multiple Grisham books, it should probably have its own article. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 14:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - it should only have its own article if it's notable (that is, it has several reliable sources listed that are independent of the subject; there actually are no such sources: I've checked). Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing your vote not just once, but twice - talk about abuse of process! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#AfD Wikietiquette. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 13:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change your vote, because it disrupts stuff and is not impressive. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#AfD Wikietiquette. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 14:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up. Thanks.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't suppose you've looked at WP:NPA lately, have you?--SarekOfVulcan 16:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume from the fact that you refuse to accept responsibility for your vote-changing means you feel slightly ashamed of it? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) "if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between <s> and </s>"--SarekOfVulcan 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porcupine, there's nothing wrong with someone changing an AFD !vote multiple times. Stop with the rude orders ("grow up") and assumptions of bad faith.--chaser - t 17:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said that doing it twice is a bit shoddy, particularly just to counter someone pointing out one of your rather silly mistakes. Also see my points here. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the damn thing already. Now!!! Burntsauce 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion - my non-admin closure was reverted because 'people voted keep'. This is absurd, since the reverter was the one person who voted keep. Just for the record, if the process policy mandates that (which I don't think it does), then it is STUPID. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A consensus hasn't clearly been demonstrated here, and since people have voted 'keep', you can't invoke WP:SNOW. And as nominator, you dratted well shouldn't be closing your own AfD, never mind doing it two days early. And for the record, I was not the one person who voted keep -- I voted rename, someone else voted keep, and the article author chimed in with a "I don't really think it should be deleted, but I'm not voting".--SarekOfVulcan 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only one person has voted keep, darling, so stop saying "people". It's so simple it's almost comical. Plus, who in heaven's name mentioned WP:SNOW except you? --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just made my implied "keep" above explicit.--SarekOfVulcan 20:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please leave AFD closures to neutral outside parties. Practice is that no one closes an AFD they initiated.--chaser - t 23:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an applicable section of one of John Grisham's novels absent more context for the article. I agree that redirecting to John Grisham makes little sense. The_Last_Juror#Plot_introduction seems to be a good option. The text there can always be modified to mention the other novels its used in and accomplish the same purpose the existent article currently does. If not that, then rename it as has been suggested (and flesh it out a little bit. I haven't read any of the novels, but I assume there's more that could be said about this fictional town). Into The Fray ^T/C 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any worthwhile content into a suitable existing article.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 08:33, 12 October 2007 (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.