Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Defence of Poetry (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes. Non-admin closure. Deor 22:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A Defence of Poetry
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced, original research, would need a total rewrite to become encyclopedic. Dethme0w 05:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The current article is a mess, but the subject is a major work listed at WP:MEA. This is well-worth cleaning up. Anyone interested? There's an entry at the Literary Encyclopedia that would be a good source. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  07:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is an important work. Needs some cleanup, and the original text coudl be uploaded to Wikisource if it hasn't already found its way. Then we could quote more relevant passages and link to the whole thing. But it isn't original research by any stretch, and I wish people would stop using that as a synonym for "unreferenced". It isn't. --Dhartung | Talk 08:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Important subject. A viable article could be written on this. --Folantin 10:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article I read may be markedly different from the nominated article; did not check the history.  But the subject &mdash; an essay by Percy Bysshe Shelley &mdash; is worthy, and the text I read has no major problems; it is largely self-referencing and consists mostly of quotes from the essay itself or Shelley's public domain letters.  - Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've fixed this to stub status. Obviously more can be done, but this is certainly no longer a case for deletion. --Folantin 15:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - you can consider this a withdrawal of my nomination. As the article appeared at the time, it was pretty much a cut and paste job (and had been deleted once already), but Folantin has done a great job so far of cleaning it up, and I would not nominate the article for deletion in the state it is in at this time. -- Dethme0w 17:57, 23 October 2007 (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.