Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Overview on Wuthering Heights “Emily Bronte’s novel”


 * 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   Delete, with prejudice. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

An Overview on Wuthering Heights “Emily Bronte’s novel”

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Third-time recreation. Essay. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 13:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia isn't for essaysBlofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Personal essay. Wuthering Heights already exists.—Largo Plazo (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Rambling essay, doesn't belong here. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR essay jimfbleak (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete personal essay, possibly somebody's homework. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 14:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also noticed this was the third time this was recreated. I suggest some salt on this. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 14:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When were the previous two versions deleted? Couldn't find anything in the log so I could compare them. Blueboy96 18:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A Short Explanation about Emily Bronte’s novel “Wuthering Heights”. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They were most likely speedy deleted. The talk page for the creator(s) of the article is where I got this. Also, note that one of the first lines is a list of the writers of this essay. So there's also some WP:OWN conflicts there. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 22:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

*Strong delete Strong delete and salt Gahhhh ... is there a speedy for this? Blueboy96 14:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Change to strong delete and salt, per evidence that this is the third time this article has been created. Block the author as well. Blueboy96 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:Snowball please.—Largo Plazo (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete--and may I add, speaking as a lit teacher, that it's a D, at the most. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A rambling essay full of OR. Title indicated to me that it wasn't a go for Wikipedia. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — tl;dr. I'd rather watch the movie in Semaphore code. On a serious note, yes, per WP:OR and WP:SNOW. MuZemike  ( talk ) 23:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Paging Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and block user if this is a third time recreation. JuJube (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Obvious original research.  And since article creator's talk page shows this is the third creation Salt.  Edward321 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not only a textbook case of WP:OR, but it looks like it belongs in a textbook. I agree if the user continually recreates this, a warning is in order. Definitely salt the title to prevent recreation. 23skidoo (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's OR, it's an essay, it's quite unreadable, since it appears to be a (machine?) translation of something written or conceived in another, unrelated language, and there's already an article about Wuthering Heights. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As you can see starting here and continued here, an IP address had vandalized this page by changing grammar and deleting parts of the AfD template. I'm not really sure, but it might be tampering by the creators of the page. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 15:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If the user does it one more time then to WP:AIV we go. MuZemike  ( talk ) 06:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that I look at it more, I am more convinced that this article (and the user behind said article) has been created for blatant disruption and/or spamming (look at the article's creator's talk page info). I would not object to a G11 for spamming and a 4im warning with the user never to post it again onto the mainspace. MuZemike  ( talk ) 06:51, 21 October 2008 (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.