Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Collines noires

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 List of Lucky Luke albums and merge encyclopedic content. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Les Collines noires

[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)

Like most albums from that series, there is nothing here to indicate notability (and no references); content is catalogue info on publication plus a lenghty plot summary. French language article is longer but also has no reception, reviews, awards, or like, listed. My BEFORE yields next to nothing. Perhaps sources exist in French; Dutch and German are similar to what we have or less. What little I found is: [1] has a mention in passing. I am having trouble machine translating [2] (mirror on ProQuest), but it seems to be another mention in passing - but the album is called "famous"? Or is it a mistranslation and it's a reference to the series? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Comics and animation, and Belgium. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lucky Luke or similar, a famous album, sold millions of copies, translated in a dozen languages or so, but hasn't really received the necessary attention despite all this. Fram (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to at least preserve the history; there possibly are sources out there in print and/or in non-English but like many of the Bande dessinee entries it doesn't look like anyone will be looking into them. I am sympathetic towards the difficulty in easily finding sources for non-recent, non-American comic sources, but many of the Lucky Luke entries seem indulgent; sampling Category:Lucky Luke albums reveals that most entries are 50% plot, 50% OR.

Honestly, if I had the time I'd suggest a List of Lucky Luke albums that had an episode guide-type format with short summaries and subheadings for redirecting to, which I personally feel is a great way of saving a lot of the content on many abandoned comic pages. But I doubt I'll have time to do so within the foreseeable, and experience has taught me no-one reading AfDs is likely to do anything proactive either. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BoomboxTestarossa Actually, folks in fiction area have been rescuing stuff, mysef included. User:TompaDompa and @Siroxo have been quite active in recent memory. I am unsure if I'd have time create such a list - not sure what format would be good - but I'd help to merge some entries to it if someone would start it. I agree that many entries from the mentioned category need either improvement or reduction to redirects since, as you say, they are just plot summaries with no indication of reception or significance :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus User:BoomboxTestarossa/List of Lucky Luke albums is a very, very quick and nasty demonstration of what I would personally do, which could well be wrong, and I've just cut & pasted text for the summaries. It would very much be all plot, but it would be limited to one page; the Lucky Luke page is long as it is so housing it there would add to the clutter and likely just get split anyway. This way at least all the plot-heavy stuff would be limited to a single page, which could then be used as a foundation should the editors and/or sources come along to build the section back up. The covers could all go as the page wouldn't justify 50 images (and should any ever be returned to standalone they can be found easily) and the text would wrap better; at a cursory glance the "characters" section is repetition of stuff mentioned in the ~~synopsisesises~~ summaries, and any sort of analysis/notes seem to be uncited at best and OR at worst, so again are probably best cut. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BoomboxTestarossa Fair enough. I'd encourage you to publish this and then we can vote to redirect/merge stuff there, or be bold and merge stuff without spending time at AfD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great idea. I couldn't find enough to "rescue" this individual nominated article, but this is just a great way to move forward. I do think the cover images would still be allowed per WP:NFCCP, but as an editorial decision I'm fine either way. —siro χ o 23:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I could go either way on the images... I would feel that a) the page doesn't "deserve" to have 50 images when it would still need so much work, compared to many much better maintained comic articles making do with only one or two and b) it would cause untidiness as it would make the infobox longer than the summaries in some cases. But I'm not going to fight it if other people think otherwise.

Just to be absolutely crystal clear, I'm correct in thinking that publishing order (rather than alphabetical) is the best way to order them, yes? Not sure when I'm going to get the current article I'm working on complete for sure, but hopefully I will be onto it tomorrow. Though if someone does want to just take the text from the draft and do it in the meantime they're more than welcome. TBH I wish I'd thought of it before redirecting all the very similar Valérian and Laureline entries some months ago, but maybe one day I'll have time to rescue those from page histories...

BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like MOS:WORKS has you covered: Items should normally be listed in chronological order of production, earliest first..

If the infoboxes would take too much vertical space, I agree, let's ditch the images for now. Maybe a single image on only the first infobox would give enough visual context to readers who prefer it?

I am not super familiar with this topic (or Valerian and Laureline for that matter) but if I get some time I can try to help merging all the articles into one.

—siro χ o 00:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep the infoboxes and images, they look good. Even if we need to drop the images due to copyright (paranoia), infoboxes are good for structured (machine readable) data too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if I can tomorrow, it didn't actually take as much time as I thought it might. Personally I feel it would be a waste to debate beforehand as again the pages seem to have been tagged for some time with various concerns. Makes more sense to me that we treat them all the same and just get it done rather than spin the AfD roulette wheel and end up with inconsistencies. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect based on BoomboxTestarossa's draft. —siro χ o 23:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First ten (up to and not including Lucky Luke contre Joss Jamon) are on List of Lucky Luke albums. A slight unexpected bump on a couple has been that once you cut out the unsourced commentary there's not actually a lot left. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BoomboxTestarossa Thank you. Quick question: is the content there based on anything that has been redirected? I know there ara mny similar entries in the series, but I wonder if we need, pro forma, list each and every one here for a separate AFD before redirect/merging? Or will you do merge discussions with templates? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus sorry, not sure if it's because it's late but I'm not really tracking what you mean =/ I just copied the content so far (well, infobox and summaries) and redirected a couple of the pages, sorry if that wasn't the right thing to do. I think I've put merge templates on all the albums, for getting the order right I just followed the 'next' page on each individual article. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BoomboxTestarossa That's fine with me, although someone can revert redirect and requet AfD for each page. I am torn between disliking redirects without discussion as a form of 'stealth deletion' vs what can be seen as wasting folks time here with cases that apepar clear. That said, in the past I've been shown that cases I've considered clear are not always so, and some articles have been rescued when I thought this could not have been done. But with history preserved and this discussion and the list created that effectivley has most content, I think your solution is pretty good. For cases you think some notability could exist based on whatever, a merge notice and/or more AfDs would be fine too. Once again, thank you taking your time and creating the list. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge based on BoomboxTestarossa's draft - a very good middle-ground for conserving info on wikipedia that due to age likely couldn't be covered encyclopedically here otherwise. I'd blanket-support dealing with similar LL articles likewise. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:25, 15 August 2023 (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.