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 Sin City. This discussion veered acorss a number of different options, although there is no consensus to keep or delete. That leaves merge or redirect. Much of the discussion revolved around potential editorial content choices and notability issues as to whether specific "yarns" were notable or not. While WP: NLIST clearly indicates the individual elements of a class do not all need to be notable, FANCRUFT is not immediately discountable simply because it is an essay - it's an explicit reference to WP:NOT and calling out non-encyclopedic material. Without detailed analysis of sourcing presented the concern over non-encyclopedic material was not substantially refuted. As such, there's a rough consensus for redirect over merge. Nevertheless, the history remains intact and any suitable material can be utilised elsewhere for editors wishing to continue working on the topic. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sin City yarns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Unreferenced plot summary. Unlikely term to be searched for. I don't see the need to redirect this. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Wholly unsourced fandom filler; the only improvement I could see outside adding sources is a link to shaggy dog story in the lede, which describes the concept of 'spinning a yarn', but this is just a wordier version of Sin City#Sin City yarns itself, which would be a proper WP:ATD. Nathannah • 📮 21:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a reasonable SPLIT of Sin_City#Sin_City_yarns. It just needs the sources. But as it has navigational interest, notability is probably not an issue. Worst-case scenario: merge it back into the main article(s). -Mushy Yank. 23:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability has nothing to do with "navigational interest" (what do you even mean by that?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NLIST states: " Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." -Mushy Yank. 10:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But this one does not fulfill anything; it's just a long unreferenced plot summary of the books. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh, yes, it does: "Lists, tables, and other material that is already in summary form may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method. If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to either keep it embedded in the main article or split it off into a stand-alone page. Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy." On top of this, see what redirects there.Hell and Back. And Booze, Broads, & Bullets.. And two other yarns. So, yes it does clearly have merit in terms of navigation. -Mushy Yank. 20:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep per Mushy Yank. If the content is suitable to be kept in a larger article, I see no detriment to it being split out as a list. BD2412 T 03:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment We're just going to give a mulligan to the article having no references whatsoever? Nathannah • 📮 20:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And one that is nothing but a WP:FANCRUFTy plot summary... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As if references about one the most famous and notable book series in the history of the genre were hard to find....WP:FANCRUFT is an essay and to refer to it regarding such a highly-and-universally-praised work as Sin City is not very necessary. -Mushy Yank. 20:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Leaning delete Agree this fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. If the individual books/plots are notable, they can be given their own stubs/pages and this can be converted to an actual list. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete - non-notable; Wikipedia is not a catalogue of subsubplots. And of course it's purely a coincidence that the article is wholly uncited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sourced now. And easily improvable with the tons of existing sources about the set or the individual books. And no, these are no ’subplots’!!!!!! -Mushy Yank. 20:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry@Anonrfjwhuikdzz but.... ”if the invidual books are notable’?????? just inform yourself please (or simply read the page). They do have a page! And they are EXTREMELY notable.... -Mushy Yank. 20:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Didn't say Sin City series was not GNG as a whole, but individual books may not be notable enough to warrant their own page. For the books that can pass GNG on their own, write pages for them and make this page into an actual list pointing to those pages. As it stands, this "list" is a catalogue of plot summaries and not a list at all. Information about the less notable books in the series can be merged into the main Sin City article rather than being placed here. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks but individual books are very notable. And, again, they DO already have a page. For the rest, I am bit confused, yes it's a list of the yarns/episodes in chronological order of publication, which gives a good outline of how the series took shape, and it includes plot and publication details. Can be improved. Will leave it at that. -Mushy Yank. 00:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Chiswick Chap. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a catalog of subplots, and this is wholly unsourced. Even if someone were to find sources for development and reception, it would duplicate the content that belongs at Sin City. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the main Sin City page, which is missing plot summaries. Per MOS:NOVELPLOT, "An article about a novel should include a concise plot summary...There is usually no need to explicitly cite the novel as a reference". The page is too short to require splitting. That said, there's a lot of cruft that could be trimmed. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Good idea _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would certainly accept a merge of an edited version to help the main article. Nathannah • 📮 00:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The plots are missing PRECISELY because they are there as a SPLIT.... -Mushy Yank. 20:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 20:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have strong arguments to Keep, Delete and Merge but no consensus so far. And a note at the bottom of this AFD asserts that the article has changed since its nomination so editors who weighed in here two weeks ago are encouraged to re-review the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning merge/delete I am still leaning toward merge/delete or merge/redirect. The four "yarns" with their own pages are notable on their own. I am still questioning the notability of the remaining books. In my opinion, the added citations on the page largely point to notability of the series rather than individual books. Some, like the reference to | dark horse comics or EBSCO really only establish existence, not notability. @Mushy Yank, it would be good to include pages or chapters for the book references you've added to make it quicker for other editors to judge notability. Yarns like "Just Another Saturday Night" that were adapted for the sin city films probably deserve their own page as adaptation into major films suggests notability of the original material.
• Overall my thoughts remain largely the same as they did previously: create articles for the books that meet notability guidelines, merge short summaries of remaining books to the main Sin City page, and delete this page. The table of yarns on the Sin city page should be enough for navigation to the various pages for individual yarns and this article can be deleted or redirected as appropriate.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anonrfjwhuikdzz, you have cast two separate votes which is not permitted. You can only cast one Bolded vote. Please strike the "vote" that you no longer stand by. Do this by placing this code around the vote: <s>Vote</s> looks like Vote. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just open the 4 first sources, for example. They have a link to the page of the book with significant coverage about the topic, as a set. Which is what NLIST requires. More sources exist. Feel free to create pages for other individual yarns, that would not make this list-page less useful. (I might add the page number to the ref template when I have more time but already spent a lot of time on this). -Mushy Yank. 11:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my delete !vote, I would also accept a merge as a compromise and an effort to reach WP:CONSENSUS. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has significantly changed AGAIN since its AfD nomination. --Mushy Yank. 18:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At first blush I thought, "It's just a list? Then why not merge with the article about the series?" Then I read it. I found it educative and convenient. This is listed as "comment" and not "keep" because I don't have something more closely related to WP guidelines and policies than that I think the readers can make good use of it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you@Darkfrog24:. Actually WP:NLIST is probably the guideline you are looking for; apologies for quoting it again, adding emphasis (mine), though:"Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Best. -Mushy Yank. 19:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sin City: the yarns for the more notable ones - The Hard Goodbye, A Dame to Kill For, The Big Fat Kill and That Yellow Bastard - are already included in their respective story articles, making this a redundant fork. If we ever get articles on the remaining stories, this list's history will be here to help start the Plot section for those. Owen× ☎ 17:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What you call "a redundant fork" is a WP:SPLIT that allows a clear overview of the series. It can be edited but it is useful. And merging back all the content (even without of the plots of the yarns that do have a page) of the books/films in the article will only contribute to make navigation uneasy. WP:Content Fork states:

  Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork

  And the same guideline indicates that for various reasons (including the size of pages):

  Content forks that are different page types covering the same subject are acceptable. Articles are not the only type of page on Wikipedia that cover subjects. Other subject-based page types include outlines, navigation footer templates, navigation sidebar templates, categories, portals, glossaries, indexes, lists, etc. Each type is designed to provide particular benefits. However, they, including corresponding articles, should not contradict each other, and any contradictory statements should be corrected or removed.

  Please bear that in mind and THEN try to explain in detail how and why this page could therefore be considered "redundant" and please also review all the sources added and other existing sources, individually and thoroughly, and check the content of every book. Yes, it will probably take you a few hours or days. It's what it took me. A simple redirect without a merge would be detrimental to the reader but a merge back would clutter up the page and induce unnecessary loss of information and navigation help. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 12:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sin City. Per OwenX above, where the individual stories are notable, they already contain (or should contain) plot summary - where they do not, a shorter version belongs at the parent article. In no case is the existence of this list justified. It's also a genuinely odd structure - one would expect such a list to be formatted as a list and contain a lot of metadata, but this is just plot summaries cobbled together and titled "list". It serves no organizational or navigational purpose - the table in the parent article does that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes; this is a list in name only. This is information that should either be in the main Sin City page (or the story's own page). Splitting it off just made it less useful. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see my reply to Piotrus above and my reply to OwenX (actually a comment on all ”R !votes, rather) about those questions. If you want to rename the page, not opposed, though. If you want to reformat it, feel free. -Mushy Yank. 19:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sin City, like others have proposed. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sin City. 190.219.103.171 (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2025 (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.