Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. and M.


 * 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. Clear consensus to delete, please see AFC should you wish to re-submit this article. Nakon 03:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

C. and M.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Author has contested prod repeatedly without addressing issues addressed by editor Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  17:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait. I just now found this page. I still "don't get it". Is this a place where it is appropriate to repeat my initial protest of the deletion? All I see is a notice that teh content is "Unremarkable". I have tried to explain this elsewhere, on the page User talk:Okskyhi.

"I read this story just yesterday. The phrase C. and M. was so curious that I spent considerable time researching it's meaning. I went to wikipedia first and found nothing. Having found what I believe to be a very credible explanation, I believe it is reasonable to share this on wikipedia for other readers of Hemingway who are similarly curious about this obscure reference. Clearly it is an archaic phrase. And standing alone, it is certainly unremarkable. But I do not believe that Hemmingway has become so obscure or irrelevant as to delete this aid to understanding his writing. Okskyhi (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)"

Then there is this: Because you keep removing the proposed deletion withou making any improvements, I have nominated the article to be discussed for deletion. This nomination can not be deleted. Go to the page where it is being discussed and make your argument there on why the article should stay on wiki. Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

So I responded with my my confusion" I really don't get all the little syntax issues. I don't understand the advice given here or in help sections. Is THIS the page where the deletion is being discussed? Where is the link to the page where this deletion is being discussed? I don't get it.

When is someone going to explain why the phrase is "unremarkable". I have stated why I think it is useful to make the explanation of the phrase available in a universal resource like wikipedia. This is beginning to seem rather petty.

Is it enough of an edit for me to correct the spelling of Hemingway's name? Would it be enough of an edit for me to figure out how to properly insert links and citations? Would it be enough of an edit for me to create another page specifically for the short story "The Light of the World"? in the category:Short stories by Ernest Hemingway?

Okskyhi (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is the discussion page. The original person who thought your article should be deleted did not feel your article was worthy of being on Wikipedia. Rather than make improvements to the article, to show why you think the subject is notable, you simply defended your point of view. And you added your defense, inappropriately, to the article itself, not its talk page.  I had to delete it. Grammar alone does not mean deletion. It only means you are a poor writer, typist and or proofreader.

Here is the place for the issue to be discussed and a consensus reached as to whether or not to keep or delete the article. If you want the article to be kept, I suggest you make a persuasive argument and improve the article so the article reflects the importance of the topic. The last time I saw the article, I was unclear as to why it should be a separate article and not merged with an already established article. Postcard Cathy (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet WP:GNG, appears to be WP:ORIGINAL, if properly cited could be incorporated into article on Ernest Hemingway? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Interesting and important are not the same thing. And if you look up unremarkable in the dictionary, you will see the relevance in this context points more towards importance than interest. Postcard Cathy (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete it already and be done with it. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - HullIntegrity  \ talk / 12:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment re: WP:BITE - For shame. I might be missing something (and I'll apologize for this scolding if I have), but it looks like has repeatedly asked for help and tried to participate while not even one person has linked him/her to the relevant guideline that forms the basis of the PROD and AfD: Notability. There's the welcome message with the bevy of various help links and the AfD notification, as well as criticism of his/her typing/writing abilities, but nowhere is notability linked -- just repeated references to [unlinked] words like "unremarkable" and "notable". We're all familiar with the distance between the commonsense understanding of those words and what we actually expect when it comes to presenting arguments on those subjects on Wikipedia.  This article is not going to end up being appropriate for Wikipedia. Either it'll be deleted or redirected, and if the latter it's more likely to redirect to the treatment than to an article about Hemingway. You might consider working on an article for Light of the World, which I was surprised to see doesn't exist. As long as all the most important aspects of the subject were covered first, it looks like there are sources about his use of slang in the story, so C. and M. might be appropriate to include there. Leave a message at my user talk page if you want to talk more about that -- or about deletion or notability. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 17:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have tried more than once to help but based on his user name I can't help but woner if English is not his first language. I have left messages here and on his talk page to improve the article based on the issues addressed, to make a persuasive argument as to why the article,mshould be kept, etc but as far as I can tell, none of that has happened. At one point, he even admitted the term was simply interesting but that seems to have been edited out. He even asks if this is the page to discuss the issue even though all links to this page say it is the discussion page. I prefer to think we have a language barrier issue here rather than a cognitive one. Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I take that back. He has said numerous times, "And standing alone, it is certainly unremarkable. But I do not believe that Hemmingway has become so obscure or irrelevant as to delete this aid to understanding his writing." He is agreeing it is unremarkable which to me is a wonderful endorsement to delete. Hemingway, I agree, is remarkable. If this topic should be discussed anywhere, it should be discussed there. Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well. Thank you, *dendrites. At least Someone gets it. Perhaps I shall respond when I have more time and patience for this school yard nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3580:E:65CF:8A17:C590:D667 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2015 (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.