Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherlock Holmes speculation

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. A rename, as discussed, may be beneficial. ELIMINATORJR 14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sherlock Holmes speculation

Sherlock Holmes speculation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The entire article is unsourced speculation. Fails WP:V. Thin Arthur 14:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced. Thin Arthur 14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep The article is not unsourced speculation at all. It appears to be an article detailing a variety of published works in the area of Sherlock Holmes "mythology". I also disagree that it fails WP:V since most of the article is discussing published works. JCO312 15:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's not 'unscourced speculation' at all. It gives a summary and brief analysis of various published books and works of fiction and literary criticism which treat Homles and Watson as 'real' people and attempt to embellish their 'back stories'. It's not speculating about some future film or offering original research or theories. Nick mallory 15:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 15:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as this could be improved with some independent sources, or perhaps this would be better reshaped as Critical responses to Sherlock Holmes or something along those lines. --Dhartung | Talk 15:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep but needs sources desperatly. Davnel03 15:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Back - This stuff here is speculation (like the article says), so merge anything that can be cited back into the main article. I'm not really sure what the point of this article is Corpx 17:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A very well establish genre with multiple published works, and very extensive secondary sourcing. this particular in-world hobby is notable.DGG (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to something like "Speculative works on Sherlock Holmes". The material is real and obviously citable; the current article name is regrettable and confusing. Mangoe 20:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rename per Mangoe. The article itself is not speculation, it merely documents the considerable secondary literature about Holmes that has grown up. It's sort of a literary parlor game: try to explain away Conan Doyle's disregard for continuity and his killing off and bringing back the character. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per the above; this actually looks like it could be cleaned up into a decent article. --Haemo 00:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back into the main article, whether it came from Sherlock Holmes or Arthur Conan Doyle Mandsford 04:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a fansite. It should not cover speculation. Postlebury 10:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and possibly rename. The article actually already mentions several reliable sources, such as the essays by Knox and Sayers and the "biography" by Baring-Gould. It's not just nameless fans speculating — it's about a subgenre of published works. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fansite material at best. Carina22 15:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keepthe conceit that Holmes was a real person is an old and popular one, and this article is about that phenomenon. Rename if the title causes confusion that the article is speculative itself rather than about speculation.KTo288 00:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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.