Deletion of Plot of Les Misérables

Comment: It seems to me that what we have here is a conflict between two policies.   requires articles on fiction to not solely be about the plot.   requires sections that are too large to fit in the main article be broken out into a separate article and summarised.  When the section in question is a discussion of the plot of a work of fiction, these two guidelines are in conflict.  But, frankly, I think  is wrong in this case: there is more than adequate context in the main article to justify having the plot summary article, and an exception should probably be included in  for the use of summary style.  It helps to think of the article we're talking about as only ''incidentally'' an article: it's real purpose is to be a ''section'' of the main article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:SUMMARY||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: I just noticed that 's examples section tells clearly that this content should reside in wikibooks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICT)

Comment: Blatant violation of  - "A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per Crazysuit. A classic novel is no less subject to  than a popular children's novel or an animated series. Articles that are solely plot summary are not at all encyclopedic - when it comes to fictional works, real-world impact is the most important thing to document, which an in-universe retelling of a fictional plot by nature would not have. Any impact the plot of Les Misérables has had on the real world is already documented at the main Les Misérables article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: unless I missed the part of #PLOT that says plot summary articles for classic works of literature are exempt.  The above arguments to the effect of "But wait, this is Le Mis, not just some movie" unfortunately have too much a taste of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Yes, because it's Les Mis. , too. If you can have endless plot summaries such as the individual episodes listed off of List of Dad's Army episodes there's room for this brief summary of one of the most complex plots ever. I have read the whole thing and have seen the New York and London productions a total of 5 times. This may need work; the ''policy'' may need work! It will be a sad day for Wikipedia if this is deleted. You'll be able to read about it in The New York Times (and think of what Stephen Colbert will say
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_/202-8790398-2033468?initialSearch=1&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=les+miserables+notes&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go these 5 books all discuss the plot of Les Miserables in non-trivial detail.  I think that suffices to demonstrate notability of the plot per .  I believe nobody has addressed it because it is self-evident that the plot of the book is notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: It is in violation of #PLOT, but is still an important topic to have in an encyclopedia because someone may want to look up what Les Mis is about or if they do not understand what the book/musical is about they should be able to look it up in wikipedia and clarify what they could not figure alone and if not kept here (and even if it is) it should be moved to wikibooks and there should be a link in the article on Les Mis
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Per #PLOT. Also, delete per . It looks like someone read the book and posted their thoughts as to what the book says. Drawing on personal knowledge without citing |reliable sources is Wp:or#Citing_oneself|original research, whether or not analysis is included. Wikipedia (including Wikisource) is not a reliable source for content within Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:OR||WP:RS)

Comment: I'm not sure that eschewing plot summaries but permitting articles on fictional characters who appear only in single works (either in individual article form or in list form) is the best way to go, regardless of the recommendations of  or . Deleting this article seems like an example of instruction creep: guidelines which were originally implemented to get fancruft off of Wikipedia are now being extended further and further, with non-optimal results. People seem reluctant to make a value judgment that yes, the plot of ''Les Mis'' deserves a place here, but the plot of cartoon/anime/kiddie book series XYZ does not, though I see how such a judgment will provoke howls of protest
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICTION||WP:NOT)

Comment: Just a plot summary, fails #PLOT by design. As for the above "keep" arguments,  is not a free pass to do whatever you want, and does not apply to , which is a definition not a rule. |Merging will cause bloating is a reason to delete, not to keep. It doesn't matter that people |did a lot of work, people always do a lot of work
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:IAR||WP:NOT||WP:BHTT||WP:EFFORT)

Comment: Per Noroton et al.  There's no reason  shouldn't apply here: if deleting an article diminishes the quality of the encyclopedia, it should not be deleted.  The plot of this novel should be covered, and while I haven't read it, I'm inclined to believe the claims that it would be impossible to present an adequate summary that was detailed enough to cover everything important in the confines of the parent article -- the first paperback version I found has http://www.amazon.co.uk/Miserables-Classics-Victor-Hugo/dp/0140444300/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6/202-8790398-2033468?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183727016&sr=8-6 over 1200 pages, and is a translation described in the article as abridged, which certainly suggests it has a rather complex plot
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: per Noroton, the undertow and Cab.  If #PLOT results in a silly action like banning plot summaries of old books which are so long and meandering as to be almost unreadable like  Les Misérables but are still part of popular culture,  then  actions much like Jury nullification here can send a message that a change is called for in . Ralph Waldo Emerson|Emerson said "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." This is not some individual episode of a sit com or a cartoon franchise. Presenting the plot of this in meaningful detail would make the main article unreasonably long
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:IAR||WP:NOT)

Comment: Let me first qualify my opinion to those who are in favor of keeping it due, in part, to deep affection for the book: Les Mis was my very first theatrical production ever, and being a part of it was an experience that changed my life. On to business: this article is a plot summary. According to #PLOT|"what Wikipedia is not", this is not what a plot article should be about. An article entitled "Plot of Les Miserables" should be about putting the plot into context, showing critical reception and perhaps thematic interpretation and an analysis of images and allusions to other works. Questions this article would ideally answer in order to be truly encyclopedic would be about its impact on society, its place within French history, and so on. It is fairly easy to assume that these things exist, due to the fact that this '''is''', in fact, Les Miserables, one of the greatest works of literature in history. An extended plot summary, in this case, just isn't necessary. I would support a complete revision of the article from the ground up, including sections that I have mentioned and a much-trimmed down summary. But the currently existing iteration of the article is not encyclopedic and I support its deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)