Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empirical study of literature


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 00:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Empirical study of literature

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It's just two giant quotes. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: That is a writing problem. Is the "study" itself notable? According to article International Society for the Empirical Study of Literature there is a society devoted to the subject—that should count for something, if it can be confirmed. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This may be a valid topic, but this article is devoted to a pair of excessively lengthy quotations rather than using a clear, encyclopedic style. If this topic is worthy of an article, it would be better to start over and write the article using clear paragraphs. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Shame on you for not reading the article history, Metropolitan90. Uncle G (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep now that the two giant quotes have been removed. J I P  &#124; Talk 06:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Always read the article history before nominating something for deletion. The article  a stub with a lot of further reading citations, before one editor got at it.  Indeed, it was very probably the blanking of that that caused  to re-add the old content at International Society for the Empirical Study of Literature.  As for whether the subject is encyclopadic: Of course it is!  By definition, even.  It's covered in an existing encyclopaedia.  (Ironically, the person who copied the non-free content wholesale claims to be the person who wrote the existing encyclopaedia article.  That doesn't make the claim true, of course, nor does it make wholesale copying the other non-free content prose valid.)  Moreover, that encyclopaedia article was properly cited in the article, right under your nose, at the time that you nominated this for deletion. I suggest, Prof. Squirrel, that you learn how to deal with copyright violations when people just blam non-free content over the top of existing articles, take in hand some of the tens of sources that are cited in older versions of the article, and have a go at writing.  It's not as if you don't have, right in front of you, an existing encyclopaedia article showing what should be covered in the article.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All right; sorry about that. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that a withdraw statement? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per work done by Uncle G. It needs expanding, a lot of it, but not of the copyvio sort that was the reason for the article being nominated for AfD. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This article is important. It certainly needs expanding and I will be working on it as well, as it is a subject that interests me. With a little work, I am sure that we can expand this article to something more than a stub. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: now a worthy stub. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have researched the subject and added a bit of academic prose that I hope will polish the article a bit. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:35, 19 December 2012 (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.