Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benefit of Clergy: Some notes on Salvador Dali


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Benefit of Clergy: Some notes on Salvador Dali
Delete. Unsubstantiated or just plain wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave59 (talk • contribs)


 * Object - The article needs a lot of work, but unless the nominator (who failed to sign his name) has specific objections that qualify the article for deletion, the nominations must be rejected. --Tjss 00:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What part of "unsubstantiated" does not count as a specific objection? &mdash; Haeleth Talk 15:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If anything this article needs to have its claims backed up by reliable sources. Dr Zak 15:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The essay's own author says, on the talk page, "It is [...] a subjective view and I cannot improve it by adding references." Does it sound to you like this is going to magically become an objective article backed up by reliable sources? Because it doesn't sound that way to me. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 15:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm convinced. Delete. Dr Zak 15:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If the essay's author believes we allow other similar essays to be kept, it would be appreciated if he could identify them for us, so we can remove those as well. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 15:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOR. The essay's own author, on the talk page, describes it as "a piece of literary criticism", and says "I would argue that this field is inherently subjective and if you are going to allow it into Wikipaedia at all (which you seem to do) you cannot expect the same standards of objectivity that you would from a Mathematician."  Since we do not allow literary criticism in Wikipedia, and we do expect the same standards of objectivity in articles on literary subjects as we do in articles on mathematical subjects, this essay violates our inclusion policies.
 * Delete per Haeleth. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It reads more like high school English lit. homework than an encyclopedia article. It's a review of a review, which I guess makes this current debate a review of a review of a review. Enough now. C-. Delete. TheMadBaron 11:59, 14 May 2006 (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.