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 no consensus. There is no strong consensus for deletion of either articles. Editorial decisions, such as merging/redirecting, should be discussed elsewhere. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grail (DC Comics)[edit]

This is a minor plot point in the Preacher comic series. It has no chance for expansion, and anything important is already included within the main article. TTN (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating an another minor plot point that cannot be properly expanded into an article that asserts independent notability:

Delete per nom. Savidan 20:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM is not a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Salvation, Texas" is actually the title of a book and so at worst should be made into a disambiguation page if not a new article about that book. Affaire de Coeur, Medwest Book Review, All About Romance, and Romance Reade at Heart, for example, have all praised this book, calling it "A first-class Romantic suspense tale," a "fine thriller," "a treat to read a good book set in Texas that really felt authentic," and "A good solid read, with great characters and a face paced plot," respectively. Thus, in any case "Salvation, Texas" should not be a redlink. Moreover, it be the name of a real location per this, which notes that "In 1895, Allen J. Smith found ova of hookworm in a privy in Salvation, Texas." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This deserves consideration. There is also a short German movie that has an imdb page. Abductive (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Grail to the comic's page. Breakout not necessary, and nn. Weak keep for the town. JJL (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a plot regurgitation which has not garnered any outside interest. Abductive (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refer editors to WP:WAF. If applied, most of the content will be removed, and a merge to Preacher (comics) would be appropriate. If that article needs splitting, there are better things to form independent articles that these pages nominated here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the comic's page, which is only 22kb total anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good suggestion and done per GFDL. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blackbirdz (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM is not a compelling reason for deletion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for sharing your opinion, as well as your link to an essay; however, it is just an essay and it doesn't seem to say what you think it does. Keep in mind that an essay is full of opinions, not indisputable facts. As it says on the top of the essay you linked to, "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." Also, the essay you've linked to explains that "just because an argument appears here does not mean that it is always invalid." It goes on to explain in the specific section you linked to, "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by 'per nom'." So, you just linked to an opinion piece that says "per nom" can be, in the opinion of its authors, a sufficient comment for this discussion if I feel, as I do, that the nominator has made a compelling presentation of evidence. In the future, don't link to essays as if they are indisputable laws, and take the time to read carefully an opinion piece before linking to it with a dismissive comment. Otherwise, you just not only look condescending and misinformed, but illiterate. Best, Blackbirdz (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is a weak "reason", because 1) it demonstrates no evidence of having actually looked for sources or considered the discussion, nor does it demonstrate any knowledge or familiarity with the subject under discussion; 2) it is inconsiderate to the article creator and writers to approach their work in a drive by three word fashion rather than through careful thought and analysis; and 3) is doubly weakened due to the nomination presenting no reason why we would not at worst redirect per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, i.e. the nomination says the information can be covered elsewhere, which is a call to merge and/or redirect, not really to red link. There is no evidence presented that these subjects are hoaxes or libelous and therefroe need to be urgently deleted. Moreover, given that at least Salvation, Texas may be a real place is a reason to rewrite rather than redlink the article. In other words, ideas and points of concern raised beyond the nomination and that the nomination itself does not address, which makes a "per nom" seem remarkably weak and reflects poorly on the poster as if the discussion was not really read and as if no efforts were made beyond the discussion to find additional sources or first try to improve the articles under consideration. We are here to build and try to improve an encyclopedia and have mature academic discussions on how to deal with content, not to simply vote. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have neglected to mention that you were wrong to link to an essay that does not say what you claimed it said, and you regret this error. Blackbirdz (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I linked to an essay titled "Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions". As the essay says, "Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion." Now the part that you quote from supports per noms when the nomination is comprehensive and provides policy based reasons for deletion, which is not the case here. The nomination is brief and cites no policy or guidelines. Given that the nomination really suggests merges and does not discount redirecting as valid per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, saying to delete per nom is still not really a convincing reason to red link even per the guideline as the nomination in this case did not demonstrate evidence of source searching or other alternatives and if anything does not suggest that something other than outright deletion, such as merging or redirecting would be totally uncalled for. Even one of the others who said to delete above, acknowledges that because Salvation, Texas may be a real city it merits consideration of rewriting the article to be about the real city and perhaps having a section of such an article on how it has been fictionalized could be a better alternative. Where have you checked for sources? What we could do is start revising on that model and see where it takes us. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems you do not quite grasp the meaning of the phrase "and/or" in the sentence you are paraphrasing. Not only does that essay not support your sweeping generalizations, but it's an ESSAY. It is not a RULE. It is an OPINION and it may be WRONG. Further, this essay says "while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised." In other words, this essay that you seem to agree with says that your comment was ill-advised. So, better luck with reading comprehension next time. In case you haven't realized it yet, I think your statements are condescending and unintelligent, and so I don't really see much purpose in discussing this further with you. Regards, Blackbirdz (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The bottom line is to support deletion per nom in this case is weak and incorrect. That you say nothing about the article itself or about where you have looked for sources is telling. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You are being unnecessarily argumentative. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It gets old seeing drive by "per noms" with no actual discussion of the article, sources, or any efforts to improve the articles either. Are we here to build an encyclopedia or not? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You assume too much. There is no requirement that those participating in AfD do specific article improvement tasks at your direction. All that is required is that they inform themselves of the article and its merits. Your assertion that "per nom" is automatically indicative of a lack of research assumes bad faith. Discontinue this line of argumentation. ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, editors should be required to demonstrate that they searched for sources and where if we are to have an academic discussion and not a vote. I am not directing anyone to do anything. I after all am thus far the only participant here to add sources to and try to improve these articles. I do not just template things myself without myself trying to do what I am able to improve them. Moreover, I am not assuming anything, just not being naive. In any event, the articles have improved and we have some options for merges or further improvement. So, I will keep an open eye out for additional sources as well and will gladly assist in any additional merge efforts. Take care! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Yeah, you're right Lar, this editor does seem to assume far too many negative things about other editors. I did exhaustive research on this topic and found nothing worthwhile. So, with nothing that would lead me to disagree with the nominator, I said delete per nom. Blackbirdz (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Where specifically did you research? It is helpful to know these things, so we can try different venues and discuss different locals. From my searches on Google Books, enough sources turn up to establish at least WP:V and arguably WP:N. If you do ever search anywhere, I strongly encourage you to mention specifically where and what kind of results emerged. Doing so either strengths one's position or at least opens up the way for more academic discussion. Please keep that in mind in the future. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh my God, you have totally made a mess of that Salvation, Texas article and filled it full of incorrect information and totally unimportant and unrelated crap about things like student films. Next time go to a library to do your research rather than just doing a half-assed google search and then giving us all a lecture on being "more academic." I strongly encourage you to never use a single source in an encyclopedia article for something like the existence of an actual town. IT'S PROBABLY JUST A TYPO FOR GALVESTON. Don't be so incredibly stupid in the future. Thanks! Take care! Sincerely, Regards, etc. Blackbirdz (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You should read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        And, no, I'm not going to list a bunch of stuff I didn't find at the library BECAUSE I DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING. If Wikipedia were the place for this horrible article where we just include every time the words "Salvation" and Texas" appear next to each other in completely unrelated ways, then it might be useful for me to go, yeah, there was an Australian that wrote back in 1992 that "Americans instinctively began to look further afield for their salvation. Texas billionaire Ross Perot ..." and back in 1995 the Chicago Tribune wrote that "cattle proved to be the economic salvation of Texas" and some writer in Dallas thinks "Hunting for profit has been the salvation of Texas wildlife habitat" and on and on but that really isn't useful for an article on a fictional town in the Preacher books. None of what I've found in all of my library and its databases, other than the Preacher books, has anything to do with the original topic of this article. DELETE PER NOM. Thanks! Take care! Sincerely, Regards, etc. Blackbirdz (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:PERNOM is not a compelling reason for deletion when the nomination has been refuted. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as last resort standard fictional entry that is verifiable and notable, it appears too big to merge into the main article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TTN. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first article is a minor plot point in the Preacher comic series which has no chance for expansion, and anything important is already included within the main article. The second article is a minor plot point that cannot be properly expanded to meet our notability guidelines. No prejudice against recreating the second article for the town, book, or as a dab page. Them From Space 08:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I have revised the article per that suggestion so that it is more like a dab page on the town, books, film, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grail I Googled about and its been featured in dozens of these comic books, and apparently is the evil organization the main characters are going up against. And it isn't just something vague mentioned in passing, but an organization shown to send out people to fight the heroes. A significant fictional group for a popular series. Dream Focus 10:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Salvation, Texas The article has a lot of information in it. The previous arguments about it being notable, seem well thought out. Dream Focus 10:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing I see above or in changes to the articles since nomination raises these above minor aspects of the series that are already included in the main Preacher article. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To make it clear it clear in light of the comment posted below mine, I'll reiterate what I wrote above that the changes to the article since the nomination (which mostly includes adding trivia unrelated to the comics) do not change my assessment that this topic is too minor for an encyclopedia article. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A real city that served as the title of both a positively reviewed book and film that showed at at least two different festivals is hardly trivial. In any event, at least that article clearly meets WP:V, WP:RS. and WP:N now and discounts the nomination and any other of the "per noms", because the article is unquestionably no longer solely in-universe or plot related. Rather, because it is a real town and the title of multiple works of fiction as verifeid on Google News and Googles books, it has real world notability as confirmed through secondary sources. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you be kind enough to supply the geographic coordinates of this "real town"? For example, 33.563444,-101.858223 are the coordinates of a place in Texas that offers salvation, although it's in a town named something else. If you cannot provide the coordinates, and there is no reasonable expectation that someone else can, it's, I submit, a mythical place. I believe almost all our articles on real places carry coordinates. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am looking for additional sources now, but even so, the fact that it is the TITLE of a book and film and that we do have multiple reviews of this book, as well as information on the film festival, at worst we would either determine which is most notable and expand the article to be about that one and then maybe have another one like Salvation, Texas (book) or Salvation, Texas (film). Put simply we would try these other options first. Deletion is an extreme last resort. There is no urgent need not to continue to see what can be done with this content, especially when there seems a reasonable expectation of other options or improvement. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Be careful not to conflate arguments. I'm always fine with merging and leaving a redirect, but the article as it is... no. It's not a real place, and any assertion that it is should be stricken. I'm glad you're dropping that line of argument. Also, being screened in multiple film festivals is not, itself, a guaranteed free pass to notability. ++Lar: t/c 20:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        As a note, the book "Salvation, Texas" has an Amazon Sales Rank of 528,321 as of when I checked: [1] It appears to be a "run of the mill" romance, one of many by the author Anna Jeffrey (note the red link? The author's not notable enough for an article) ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        As she has written multiple books that have also been reviewed, we could always merge what we have here as the start of an article on her and her various writings using any interviews with her and reviews of the various books. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thus adding one more article to the BLP problem. No thanks. She's not notable, I don't think, based on the research I've done so far. ++Lar: t/c 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        She is verifiable through multiple reliable sources and has written multiple novels available from Amazon.com, etc.; i.e. sufficiently notable for our purposes, but even then, we still have the potential of the article on the film. As for the possible real town, my suspicion is that it existed back in the day, but not any more. I wonder if there are some kind of Texas government history archives that can be researched. But in any event, I have to wrap things up for today. So, take care. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This does not appear to be a real city supported by sources, the sources for the romance novel seem to be unreliable blogs, and the student film seems entirely non-notable based on the sources for it. I do not see how this comes close to meeting WP:V, or WP:RS. or WP:N. I do not see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of these subjects, so the nominator remains correct in his or her original assessment. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because the sources for the Romance novels (multiple ones actually) are from Google Books and Google News and are not just blooks, they meet WP:RS. The film's sources and fact that it was at multiple festivals meets WP:N. And because we can verify all of this information, they meet WP:V. Thus, due to significance coverage in reliable sources that are independent of these subjects, the nominator has been proven incorrect in his/her original comments, especially because his/her original comments did not apply to the film or book, but only the notable comic series. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree with your assessment of the article as you've written it and its sources, and I still agree with the nominator's original assessment. Your addition of poorly sourced trivia to this article has not improved it, nor has it changed the accuracy of the nominator's original assessment in any way other than to strengthen his or her argument. You are dangerously close to trolling here and I suggest you might want to just let it go. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The original nomination referred only to unsourced information about the comics. That information has now been sourced in part plus the addition by not just me, but a couple of others of additional non-trivial sources about items beyond the comic that further weakens the nomination's inaccurate claims. Saying otherwise is dangeriously close to a false assessment of the facts. In any event, we clearly have at worst merge and redirectable material per WP:PRESERVE and can continue efforts and discussions to that effect on the relevant talk pages. Take care! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Nevertheless, we do have material we can either continue to improve or merge and redirect somewhere as a compromise and I am more than happy to assist further in such efforts. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Nevertheless, no we don't. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        We have already established that we can verify the information on the films and books in reliable sources and that they are neither hoaxes nor libelous, ergo no need to delete them. As for the comic information, as this information is also verifiable, part of a notable series, and an integral aspect of its plot, we can merge it to the Preacher article. Of course, the Grail information could be relevant as well to an article on the Holy Grail in popular culture. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not really. The sources for the Anna Jeffrey romance novel are: The novel (not independent), a blog that is neither reliable nor significant,[2] and another blog that is neither reliable nor significant[3] . Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If only one random blog reviewed it, okay, but we have multiple reviews and hey we can see the book on Google Books and Amazon.com, so we know it is not made up, and again, it is not just one book. There is another novel with the fictional town in it. Deletion in any event is an extreme last resort. These articles do not contain libelous or other damaging information that there is a pressing need to get rid of and to prevent editors from continuing to improve, as after all Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Finally, per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, when we have at worst redirect locations to the comics series, we do that at least, as a courtesy to our readers who come here for this information and then with the edit history intact, as additinal sources are discovered, we can work from a basis rather than having to start over. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, you're still wrong, and now arguing against straw-men. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You have presented no reason beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT for deletion, which is not a valid reason. Just because you do not care for these topics, thousands ([4] and [5]) of our readers apparently do. We are not here for what we do or do not personally like. Because the subjects are verifiable through reliable sources, they are notable and as such we either continue to improve or merge and redirect per WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I pointed to several specific problems with the article such as that the town you said was a "real city" does not appear to be, and and that we have no relaible sources discussing this romance novel in a significant way. You, on the other hand, have presented no reason beyond WP:ILIKEIT for keeping this, which is not a valid reason. And those charts? All they show is like 10 views (not readers as you claim, but views) a day on these articles until they were listed for deletion. So, nobody is really interested in viewing these other than editors considering whether they ought to be deleted. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You haven't pointed to any really legitimate problems. Because we have reliable sources that discuss the romance novel in a significant way, there is no reason not to keep it and improve further. Or to do the same for the film. Or at worst to merge and redirect the comic information, some of which incidentally already has been merged and thus cannot be deleted anyway per the GFDL, by which we must keep attribution history public. So, at this point the articles cannot be deleted. We can however, discuss whether to redirect or merge further or keep altogether. But hey, I am probably going to go hunting now, so take care! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I did. That you wrote an article about a "real city" that is not a real city is a legitimate problem of major proportions. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The woodchuck ran away before we could get a shot off. :( Anyway, it doesn't change the fact that we have valid redirect locations and other editors who do see validity in perhaps expanding the film article. For example, Michael below is a real actor and expert on some of these short films and the like that many of us aren't. I tend to take his word on these sorts of things. But I'm going watching that REC (film) and/or The Haunting in Connecticut, so... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep due to considerable improvements since nomination and above deletes that do not address most recent improvements. Salvation, Texas has just now been revised to cover the book and film that are titled as such, the real town, as well as the comic setting. Any town that shares its name with a book reviewed multiple time and a film shown in multiple film festivals is obviously notable, and of course verifiable. As for Grail, no reason has been presented why at worst we would not merge and redirect as indeed most of the deletes essentially say it can be covered elsewhere, which is a call to do just that, but that is something to handle on article talk pages, not here. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Grail per nom. What I mean by that, in case there is any doubt or confusion, is that I have carefully reviewed the nominator's arguments, checked them against the article in question, and found them to be valid, and it would be a silly exercise to repeat them verbatim. Also, the article is written in an in-universe style, and is uncited. If there's anything of value there, it should be merged into the main article on Preacher. As for Salvation, delete all the fictional elements and keep the article focused on the real place, assuming it exists... however, aside from the cite given in the lead I can't find where this place is. If it can't be located, I'd go with it not existing, so delete as well. ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is not really true of course, because the nominator's comments have been disproven. Grail is a notable aspect of a major work of fiction that does contain at least one citation, and moreover some of it already has been merged, which means per the GFDL we cannot delete as attribution history must remain public for merged articles. In teh case of Salvation, Texas, we could use the information in it as bases for articles on the film or book with the title as the same or continue to expand this article accordingly, but again, there remains no valid reason to red link either, i.e. nothing beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid reason for deletion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no objection to leaving a redirect behind. That preserves the attribution information. The rest of what you say is armwaving. I stand by my characterization of Grail as not notable enough to merit an article of its own. You may not agree with the nominator's argument but I do. And I have so noted, and expect the closing admin to take that into account. You are being unnecessarily argumentative, there is little value in trying to rebut everything every other person writes if you repeat yourself to do so. We do not measure volume of text as a metric in deciding deletion. ++Lar: t/c 19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we measure validity of arguments rather than number of drive by "per noms", then there is no doubt the articles will be kept, or at worst merged and redirected, as no closing admin could reasonably see any pressing need to redlink. In any event, imagine what more would be accomplished if instead of arguing here, everyone pitched in to actually improve the articles under discussion or see where we can merge what we can. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Don't try to prejudge the outcome. Also, stop disparaging those who chose to say 'per nom' instead of regurgitating the argument. I'm fine with merge and redirect as an outcome for both these articles but most of the material in them needs to not survive the merge, it's unsourced and too trivial. ++Lar: t/c 20:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Grail Breaking down the plot into elements like this is not appropriate--andi would say the same for almost any work of fiction. The discussion is much better integrated with the rest of the article. Only a little need be merged--the reference to other works using this theme.

Merge for Salvation. Locations, on the other hand, are elements which sometimes can be appropriately separated, and where in particular a list of locations can be helpful in understandng an article. But for this article, it's probably not long enough for that. DGG (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Salvation, Texas as a location (real or fictional or historical), title of book, and title of film. The current article has sourcing toward notability and will best serve the project by being expanded and further sourced. Perhaps split the existing article into several: Salvation, Texas (place), Salvation, Texas (film), and Salvation, Texas (book)... but such requires a keep and not a deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grail (DC Comics) as article is sourced and can improve the encyclopdeia with continued growth, or perhaps Merge and set redirect into one of the three new articles (likely to Salvation, Texas (place)), or to DC Comics... as the content would have context with either article in the instance that editors do not find enough independent notability through the article's improvement since nomination. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't we all love multi-nominations, where we have to then research the different sources available toward different aspects of notability, and then provide considered comments addressing the different articles? Fun stuff. Happily, the nom's opinions that the Grail (DC Comics) article had no chance for expansion, and that the Salvation, Texas article could not be properly expanded or sourced has only spurred the efforts to do just what he predicted could not be done. Kudos to those working under the ticking clock. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dual nomination shows does show confusion--plot elements as vague as the Grail are absurd splits--locations are possible ones. It might be clearer to renominate separately. DGG (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The book portion of the Salvation, Texas article has greater notability than the film portion, while the comic portion is decently sourced... and there may even be historical notability found for the location portion. 4 different articles under the one name. Yikes. And then there is the discussion about the merging and setting a redirect of some content from the Grail article into the DC Comics article. What a confusing situation. I do not feel a blanket keep or a blanket delete best serves in this instance, and do not envy the closer who has to weigh various arguments angainst various portions of various comments and perhaps come up with 5 different decisions for one nomination. Again, yikes. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:50, 30 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.