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 keep, with no prejudice against further discussion to merge or redirect. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Party

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is pure plot, with no real-world significance. The article Ingsoc already describes the general political structure of the world of 1984, we don't need further articles for the specific fictional political parties.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Cambalachero (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 18:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge all. Nineteen Eighty-Four is the subject of extensive analysis and critcism in works such as George Orwell's 1984 and George Orwell's Guide Through Hell: A Psychological Study of 1984. The various features of the story have analogues in the real world because the story is based upon real-world politics. To propose that such famous elements of the work as the proles should become red links seems ridiculous. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect- I wrote proles why back when, it should not be a redlink, but these are not really encyclopedic topics. Renata (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing in mind the level of coverage the book has received, these articles have WP:SNOW chance of being deleted and should not have been nominated for deletion. I think this AfD should be procedurally closed and the articles then proposed for merger in the normal way if there is still felt to be a case for merger. These topics might well be independently notable. A search for "inner party"+1984 produces hundreds of results in GBooks, for example. James500 (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/keep per James500. Then discuss merger in the normal way. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per James500. No basis for outright deletion. Merge/redirect prospects can and should then be discussed in the conventional manner.--JayJasper (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2014 (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.