Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kremlin Letter (plot)

:{{la|The Kremlin Letter (plot)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Kremlin_Letter_(plot) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|The Kremlin Letter (plot)}})

This is an extremely long synopsis (about 4500 words!), well beyond the WP:FILMPLOT recommended max. length (700). There is an attempt to justify this in Talk:The Kremlin Letter#Way too long, but I don't buy it. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure if a long synopsis warrants a deletion. The article could be could use some headings or some other improvements in the layout. But I agree that the article is way too long in the position that it is in. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

:*Reply. No other film article I've ever encountered has a separate plot page, and I've seen plenty. FILMPLOT is pretty specific as to what's acceptable. It's all a Commie plot, I tell ya. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. While Wikipedia is a place for information about notable films, it's not a repository for long descriptive pages about a film's plot. The movie's plotline is already covered in the pre-existing page for the film and I can't see where the article is improved because we have a blow-by-blow summary of the film on a separate page. There's zero reason for there to be a separate page specifically for the film's plot. If not for the fact that this was created back in August, I'd suggest A10-ing the whole thing. This is just a pretty good example of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• My two pence as the writer of this page. The main article is not and has never been the "the pre-existing page for the film," that page is still and always has been the main article, with a helpful short summary, which readers see first. This page is only a sub-page of the main article. The film itself has a very deeply woven and threaded plot, which on only one screening, might be hard to follow for some, even though they may like watching the characters, overall sweep of things like plot, cinematography and so on. Hence, coming to Wikipedia to read about the film, some readers might want to read a thorough rundown on the whole plot. The main article (with the short summary) looks like it gets an average of almost 50 hits a day, over 4,000 in the last 90 days. This plot page averages roughly 4 hits a day, almost 400 in the last 90, so while no readers of the main page are getting bogged down by a long plot summary, about one in ten are clicking through to have a look at this more thorough (and very long) sub-plot-page. This is close to what I thought might happen and why I think it's working as hoped. Since this page is there for those who might want to read it and meanwhile no reader need see anything other than the standard Wikipedia film article if they don't wish to, I see no editorial harm to Wikipedia or its readers, only help. Also, so far as I know, not having looked at their contribution history, the nom, User:Clarityfiend is here in good faith and if the fiend handle in their name means they feel strongly about making Wikipedia ever more helpful, which I think it must, I think that's great. Their username does clearly put forth a strong editorial agenda or priority. While I should think there is much overlap between their and my outlooks on editorial clarity here, our methods of getting clarity, so far as this article goes, may not be quite the same. I think the shorter summary in the main article yields clarity, so we seem to see that the same way. Moreover, I think the much longer summary on the sub-page, which most readers don't click through to, also yields a lot of clarity for those who want it. Having said all this, only as to this article, I myself have an agenda, on the topic. I first saw this film in my early teens and ever since, I've thought of it as the best and truest "spy movie" I've ever seen or know of (the novel from which it was drawn was written by someone who had worked for CIC). Although it's long been overlooked by most critics, it may be in my own "top ten" of films ever made. Others here and there, however few and far between, feel more or less the same way. So, after thinking about it off and on for over a year (as I recall), following WP:Not paper and WP:Bold, I made this sub-page last August. Thanks for reading this (long!) post and thank you User:Clarityfiend for letting me know about this on my talk page and thereby stirring me up to think it through once again and share my thoughts here, which I've enjoyed, given my own eagerness about the article topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete I found the plot synopsis in the main article to be PLENTY long enough. This separate article reads almost like a Cliff's notes. Much too long, and for anyone who wonders about the movie, a bad substitute. I can imagine that if it had been written as a piece of brilliant criticism, a' la Anthony Lane, Pauline Kael, Christopher Hitchens, then the synopsis would be interesting. Alas, a mere accounting of the scenes and characters is not enlightening. LaMona (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2014 (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.