Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pnakotic Manuscripts

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 merge to Books in the Cthulhu Mythos#Pnakotic Manuscripts. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pnakotic Manuscripts

[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)

I can't find any discussion of this fictional book that goes beyond plot or a passing mention about it being the first of several fictional books Lovecraft used in his mythos. If all the plot is removed, this would be ~2 sentence long stub. It fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. PS. Merge with Books in the Cthulhu Mythos is an option but there is precious little non-plot content to rescue here... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It might be better to merge this article with Cthulhu Mythos or related article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishkafle (talk • contribs) 09:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as long as no more substantial sources can be found. No benefit in loosing all the content here by deletion. Pnakotic Manuscripts are mentioned in a number of academic publications, but are usually grouped with other fictional books from the Cthulhu Mythos, so I think Books in the Cthulhu Mythos is the best target.

Also "If all the plot is removed", which would not be the right thing to do for a Wikipedia article about a fictional subject, 2 paragraphs would remain, not ~2 sentences. Let's not be so pessimistic. Daranios (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Some plot-related information is also worth rescuing in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Daranios (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Books in the Cthulhu Mythos § Pnakotic Manuscripts There is no evidence that the Pnakotic Manuscripts have been seriously studied. I tried to find sources using the Lovecraft Annual. Unfortunately, I did not find any substantial discussions of these fictional texts. Meanwhile, the article has no content worthy of preservation. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Books in the Cthulhu Mythos#Pnakotic Manuscripts. The bits of information in the lead, such as it being the first of Lovecraft's fictional books, would be good to merge into the main article. A lot of the plot information, especially in the "contents" section, look to be comprised of a lot of original research, though, and should probably not be included. Rorshacma (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I had to hover over that link to be sure you weren't arguing to merge this article into itself. Reyk _YO! 21:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Haha, oops! I fixed the link above to display correctly, to avoid confusion! Rorshacma (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2020 (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.