Jump to content

Talk:You Like It Darker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

[edit]

I do not believe that "Finn" is notable. The only reviews in reliable sources appear to be in the context of broader reviews of You Like It Darker, and none of those reviews devote more than a sentence or two to the story. A brief plot summary and reception can be included in the article on the book. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would respectfully disagree. "Finn" is a standalone work by a highly prominent author, and stands out because of the unorthodox manner in which it was published. It was reviewed upon publication by USA Today and by the literary essayist Bev Vincent. I would suggest that, had it not been collected, it would still be notable; should it receive more attention post-collection, naturally that would increase its notability. McPhail (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One review by a literary essayist is not enough to establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable by being a work of Stephen King. Jmj713 (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited because notability is defined as having significant coverage in reliable sources. Not every work created by Stephen King needs an article. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are referencing the fifth criteria at NBOOK, which I'm not sure I have ever seen applied to newly-published works given the "historically" tagline. These works are ones which have typically been studied in academic journals. Whereas this a new work and should at least pass GNG. It did not receive significant coverage upon publication on Scribd in 2022 and that remains unchanged even now that there are passing mentions in reviews for You Like It Darker. I also think #5 would moreso apply to this published collection, not each story in it. But that is tangential to this discussion. Οἶδα (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than one review. McPhail (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of those reviews, except for LifeIsStory, are reviews of the book, with one sentence descriptions of the short story. That's not significant coverage. Also, LifeIsStory does not have clear editorial standards and appears to partner with book publishers, so it's independence and reliability are unclear at best. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are additional sources: 1, and 2. Jmj713 (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The USA Today story was already listed in the article. Horror Tree doesn't have any clear editorial policies. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we have enough sources. I'm always supportive of more information, not merging/deleting articles, I don't see a point in that. Wikipedia is about information, not bureaucracy. Jmj713 (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Normally I would find myself in opposition to merges related to King, but I believe voorts is correct here. The reception section is considerably lacking. I would say it immediately fails WP:NBOOK #1 and fails the same concerns at WP:GNG. Οἶδα (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Despite being written by Stephen King, which alone makes it notable, the article has various notable sources. Can the article be written better? Of course so let's this pages some time to grow and expand before immediately trying to get rid of it. Jeremyeyork (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this extends beyond the article merely needing to be written better. It fails to establish general notability independent of You Like It Darker. It lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that exceeds trivial mention. Οἶδα (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense most mentions would be related to the collection, but we still have separate articles for most if not all of King's collected fiction. Jmj713 (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that other stuff exists. Using that as a defense is essentially just rehashing the same appeal to WP:NBOOK #5 above (i.e. "Stephen King is so historically significant that any of his written works may be considered notable"), which I believe I have already responded to above. We need more engagement in this discussion to determine if this is a valid rationale. Οἶδα (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the "Reception" section and will continue to do so as reviews trickle out. I've also expanded the "Publication" section to expand somewhat on the authorship and publication of the story; I feel there are some interesting points here that would be lost in the You Like It Darker article. McPhail (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at Proposed article mergers. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horror, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of first five sources of this article version:

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Ref 1 No Afterword to You Like It Darker Yes Yes ✘ No
Ref 2 Yes No clear editorial standards. No One short paragraph about the short story in a review of the collection. ✘ No
Ref 3 Yes No This is the only mention of "Finn" in the source: "'Finn' is about a young Irishman whose recent run of bad luck culminates in a kidnapping and a case of mistaken identity in a tale inspired by an Ambrose Bierce classic. (Scribd, May 2022)" ✘ No
Ref 4 Yes No WP:SPS No One short paragraph and a bizarre sentence about the short story in a review of the collection. ✘ No
Ref 5 Yes Yes No This is the only mention of "Finn" in the source: "'Finn' spielt – warum auch immer – nicht in den USA, sehr sehr selten bei King, und stellt die am Ende brutale Frage, ob Determinismus eine Konstante in unser aller Leben ist – und alles andere, das Abweichen vom Kurs, nur eine Fantasie in den letzten Sekunden unseres Lebens." ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The rest are much the same.

This is the only GNG-contributing source for "Finn". voorts (talk/contributions) 03:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find myself regrettably on the fence here. With respect to notability, we don't necessarily discount coverage of a story just because it happens to be part of a collection. And a work by King meets BOOKCRIT No. 5, in my view. That said, the quantity of encyclopedic material isn't huge, and we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel to flesh out the standalone article. In the abstract, the best outcome here is to cover all the stories in the collection in the page about the collection. As things stand, however, that would create a due weight problem, and I would rather have a marginal standalone than a heavily unbalanced collection article, or just a loss of information. I suppose I am a conditional support, conditional on the collection article being fleshed out. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like to comment on matters about which, or about things adjacent to which, I've previously acted as a closer. Here, however, I feel I ought to.
    To begin with, the GNG has not been met. I thought this was apparent from the preceding discussion, but because people opined in the closure review that the sources had not been adequately discussed, I will do so now.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://books.google.com/books?id=L5YJEQAAQBAJ No Yes Yes ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20240604173603/https://bookandfilmglobe.com/fiction/book-review-you-like-it-darker/ Yes Yes No Only two sentences about to "Finn", one of which merely explains the premise briefly ✘ No
https://www.cemeterydance.com/extras/bev-vincent-explores-you-like-it-darker/ Yes No One sentence explaining premise ✘ No
https://mikefinnsfiction.com/2024/05/31/you-like-it-darker-2024-by-stephen-king-narrated-by-will-patton/ Yes No Wordpress blog. Author doesn't seem to be a subject matter expert Yes ✘ No
https://www.rollingstone.de/reviews/kuendigt-stephen-king-mit-ihr-wollt-es-dunkler-seinen-langsamen-abschied-an/ Yes Yes No One sentence ✘ No
https://stephenking.com/works/short/finn.html No Yes Yes ✘ No
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/stephen-king-to-publish-new-short-story-with-scribd-on-may-25-301534215.html No Scribd press release Yes Yes ✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Stephen_King/h6Z0EAAAQBAJ Yes Yes No Appendix entry with no prose ✘ No
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/93150-scribd-originals-gains-traction.html Yes Yes No Named in a list of examples ✘ No
https://www.actusf.com/detail-d-un-article/stephen-king-publication-de-finn-et-annonce-dune-suite-%C3%A0-cujo Yes Yes Not a traditional media outlet, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt ~ I'd normally consider this much prose significant, but half of it is vapid padding ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.lifeisstory.com/fiction/finn-stephen-king/ Yes No Wordpress blog. Author doesn't seem to be a subject matter expert Yes ✘ No
https://stephenking.com/works/collection/you-like-it-darker.html No Yes No ✘ No
https://www.revolvermag.com/culture/anthraxs-madhouse-single-used-torture-device-new-stephen-king-book/ Yes Yes No Three sentences about "Finn", one noting its presence in the collection, one noting its method of publication, one noting its mention of the song the article is about ✘ No
https://bloody-disgusting.com/books/3813133/stephen-kings-you-like-it-darker-finds-beauty-and-hope-in-nihilistic-horror-review/ Yes Yes No Shares a single sentence with another short story ✘ No
https://screenrant.com/you-like-it-darker-stephen-king-finn-absurd-not-scary/ Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://cannonballread.com/2024/06/you-like-it-darker-dreadpiratekel/ Yes No Nebulous group hosting a Wordpress blog No Three sentence reaction ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20240617222851/https://thespectator.com/book-and-art/stephen-king-darker-shows-master-at-his-peak/ Yes Yes I couldn't access this source, but judging from the title, it's about the collection, so I'd be surprised ? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20240621191639/https://ravenousmonster.com/books-comics/stephen-kings-you-like-it-darker-book-review/ Yes Yes Not a traditional media outlet, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt No Shares a sentence with another short story ✘ No
https://www.queenslandreviewerscollective.com/2024/07/10/you-like-it-darker-by-stephen-king/ Yes No Wordpress blog. No apparent editorial process No Barely 60 words about "Finn" ✘ No
https://hauntedmtl.com/horror-in-print/you-like-it-darker/ Yes Not clear what the group is. Contributor profiles are unimpressive and there doesn't appear to be an editorial board or policy No 55 words about "Finn" ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://liljas-library.com/showreview.php?id=431 Yes No Seems to be a blog No Listed, not discussed ✘ No
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/books/2022/04/27/stephen-king-finn-exclusive-cover-reveal-scribd/9543384002/ No Likely a press release or paid promotion, judging from how it reads ~ Yes ✘ No
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/books/2024/05/21/stephen-king-you-like-it-darker-book-review/73668218007/ Yes Yes No One sentence ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20240531115051/https://gb.readly.com/magazines/sfx/2024-05-15/6644c0315f97ae70787e710b Yes So-called "magazine" without its own website. Unclear whether is has an editorial board or policies Couldn't access it, but it's another review of the collection, so probably not ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
So no, GNG definitely not met. Some have been arguing that NBOOK#5 is met, but this seems to me like a dubious reading of that criterion. It seems to mean that said criterion describes an author whose entire corpus is so heavily discussed by scholars that any work they wrote will have been sufficiently covered to merit an article, regardless of whether that work has been treated independently. In other words, it's about people like Tolkien and Lewis, not King.
Vanamonde93 expressed concern that merging would overburden this article, but I believe that after all the unreliable, undue, and redundant content is purged, what remains would easily enough fit in a one- or two-paragraph section about the short story, which I don't think would be an unreasonable burden. So support. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This blind devotion to "regulations" is my least favorite thing about Wikipedia. Jmj713 (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the core policies of Wikipedia is IAR. If you have a compelling reason to do that, nobody is stopping you from explaining why. Or, if you think we're misreading the notability guidelines or are incorrect in our source assessments, you can also explain why. There's no need to attack other editors. AGF. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]
Closing since the proposed merge discussion was re-opened. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Compassionate727 - I would question your assessment of there being a "rough consensus" to merge. I make it two votes for and two votes against. Further, the most recent "for" vote is from May 2024, i.e. over four months ago. You have not provided a rationale for your decision. McPhail (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated at AJ27's talk, nobody showed that the short story was independently notable of the book. The fact that the short story has been reviewed in the context of the book does not make it independently notable. The plot description on the short story page is longer than those for some book articles on Wikipedia. The article also makes up significant coverage where there is one. For example, here's what Bloody Disgusting has to say about "Finn" in its review of the book: "While none of the collection's twelve tales fall flat, some feel more developed than others. 'Finn' and 'Red Screen' both present ominous ideas, but offer little more than snapshots of larger terror." Here's what our article says A less positive review was received from Jenn Adams (reviewing You Like It Darker for Bloody Disgusting), who described "Finn" as one of the less developed stories in the collection, stating that it "present[s] ominous ideas, but offer[s] little more than snapshots of larger terror". Presenting a review of two short stories as if it's a review of one in a sentence longer than the original is not due weight. This is precisely why WP:NSONG says we usually don't have independent song articles. It's very easy to string together reviews of the same song from several album reviews, all of which alone are half a sentence each but can get cobbled into an article that makes it seem like the song is independently notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporters of a merge argued, based on the relevant policies, that the book does not meet our standards for notability. Opposers failed to refute these arguments. The age and numbers of votes is irrelevant. Had this discussion taken place at Articles for deletion, it would have been deleted. That the venue is an article talk page does not change the need to demonstrate notability. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree that "The age and numbers of votes is irrelevant", as the content of the article has changed significantly since the votes were cast. Here is the article on 31 May 2024, when the most recent vote to delete was cast, and here is the article now. Your decision does not take cognisance of the changes made to the article in the intervening five months. McPhail (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, despite the additional sources, WP:NBOOK#1 still has not been satisfied. Screen Rant is one source, but I'm not seeing the second. (PRNewswire is affiliated, USA Today is routine, Life is Story is a personal blog, etc.) I'm not really convinced that it even meets the lower standard of the GNG, either. If you can point out what I'm missing, I'll revert my closure, but at the moment, I remain unpersuaded. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information should never be deleted. Jmj713 (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is being deleted. Content will be merged into the book article, and the page history will remain after a redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:You_Like_It_Darker&oldid=1266233504"