Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elvis's Twin Sister


 * 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   no consensus. Closing without prejudice against re-nomination. Skomorokh 01:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Elvis's Twin Sister
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article doesn't assert any notability for this poem, so we're left to guess (from the template) that the creator considers it notable because it's included in the AQA Anthology. The fact that it's in the anthology is already indicated in the article on the anthology; the fact that certain British pupils are required to study this poem does not confer inherent notability on it or justify a separate article. Simply being in an anthology is not a substitute for the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" requirement of WP:GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 23:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If this survives AfD I might improve it. These articles are ripe for expansion. For example Education for Leisure recently featured on the main page as a DYK. The problem is not notability but the fact this is a useless substub atm.  Francium12  11:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding me something to firefight while you delete List of schools in Romania though! Francium12  11:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN requires notability to be demonstrable at any time, not airy pronouncements about how this might be "ripe for expansion" at some unspecified date. - Biruitorul Talk 14:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to AQA Anthology. The poem isn't notable enough on its own for an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom. Gosox5555 (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Question The Google Book search shows the poem has been published in other books.  Are any of them notable?   D r e a m Focus  14:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge  It appears like the 11 google books are all in fact talking about this article. Including  which is a text book, 6 other textbooks, mentioned in the book Carol Ann Duffy By Deryn Rees-Jones  Ikip (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Its in a textbook.  D r e a m Focus  22:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, time to dust off WP:RS again: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion". Ikip, care to show any source providing (per WP:GNG) "significant coverage" of the topic that "addresses the subject directly in detail"? - Biruitorul Talk 23:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, although an article may "not establish notability", that does not mean the subject has no notability; merely that the article must be expanded - as I have taken the liberty to begin to do. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 14:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is established through "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That has not been established in the slightest. Footnote 1 is a self-published teaching guide, without editorial oversight, that violates WP:SPS. Footnotes 2 and 3 merely mention the subject in passing, as part of a long list of poems, and in no way can be considered "significant coverage". Footnote 4 is from a textbook, the use of which is discouraged by WP:RS, whenever "detailed discussion" of the subject is absent in secondary sources (which is the case here). As for footnote 5: sorry, any poet can read her own work, and while Duffy's notability is not in question, her having read one of her poems once in no way confers notability upon it. Thus, we still lack "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", a requirement for demonstrating notability. - Biruitorul Talk 00:16, 10 September 2009 (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.