Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semiotics of the Salem witch trials

:{{la|Semiotics of the Salem witch trials}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Semiotics of the Salem witch trials}})

Article consists entirely of original research (especially WP:SYNTH). In addition, this does not appear to be a notable topic – I can find no journal articles or books that discuss it. Jenks24 (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I am sure there is a good article on the Salem witch trials already. This one is really just one person's opinions. Nothing wrong with that, but not a suitable encyclopedia article.BigJim707 (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Selective merge what can be sourced to Salem witch trials. I agree that most of the page is OR and that this topic is not independently notable. It is, however, a valid concept that is relevant to the target and appears not to be covered there already. In addition to the references in the article there are other sources available - e.g. [http://www.academon.com/Essay-A-Discussion-and-Semiotic-Anthropology-Of-the-Salem-Witch-Trials/37203] and various papers that can be mined e.g. [http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=Salem+witch+trials+semiotics]. My view is that it is worth a short section in the target. TerriersFan (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• If that first source is RS, then I agree that a merge would be a good option, but according to [http://www.academon.com/seller_login.html this] you only have to pay to publish an article on that site and it doesn't appear that they are reviewed in any way. Regarding the gscholar search, I couldn't find any articles actually discussing semiotics and the Salem witch trials together, just articles where both happen to be mentioned. Jenks24 (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. TerriersFan may be right that a short semiotics section could improve the already quite comprehensive Salem witch trials article, but I don't think that this personal essay is a useful starting point for that effort. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Merge any valid information to Salem witch trials, then redirect{{spaced ndash}}Appears to be an essay with significant synthesis. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Smerge per TerriersFan and NorthAmerica1000. I had prodded this ("This appears to be original research in the field of semiotics.") but some information could be valid and kept as a small section. It's certainly consensus that this topic is not yet ready for its own article. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: per WP:ESSAY. Not only is this completely OR and SYNTH, I can't fathom, in this turgid, rambling mass, what the point is the author is attempting to make. I see no reason why some poor closing admin ought to sift through this to decide what - if anything - is "valid" information worthy of inclusion in other articles, and so Oppose any merge result; if those editors advocating merging would care to take a swing at it themselves, that would be fine. Ravenswing 17:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Non-encyclopedic title and many aspects of an original essay in content. I have a hunch that there is material here which may be used profitably on several different pages, but I don't have any idea who is motivated enough to do that. This appears to be a college term paper ill-advisedly ported over to WP. The creator seems to have only worked on this page but came back to it more than once. Will the closing administrator please leave a message for the creator explaining how to userfy the material following the seemingly inevitable Delete outcome? Carrite (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete original research, synthesis, etc. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:OR. I have a question though - Would any of you merge voters merge the content yourself and if so, how will you go about it? SL93 (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Selective Merge per TerriersFan. Although if it is too much work, I am happy to go with Delete. Way too much OR. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• Selective merge (with others) -- This is a borrible article, without a proper lead, and with no explanation of what Semiotics are - the word is not in my vocabulary. HOwever, there might be something to merge. I do not know enough of the subject to be able to judge that. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment: If you don't know enough one way or another to tell, how can you advocate merge? Surely a prerequisite to merging is having valid information worth merger. We cannot just assume, absent any evidence of the same, that, well, there must be useful information because, well, there just must be, that's all ... Ravenswing 19:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete We have an article on the trials. If there's a body of work on this view of the trials, this the current article doesn't link to it. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2011 (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.