Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homecoming (poem)


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Homecoming (poem)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This poem does not appear to be notable. I tried searching for sources, but all I could find was websites where you could buy essays about the poem. It's been tagged as sourceless since 2007. It really makes no claims of notability anyway, the whole article mainly describes the writing techniques employed in the poem. Millermk90 (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with an encyclopaedia article describing and analysing the way that a poem is written. That is what one should expect from an encyclopaedia, after all.  However, that content, added by  in November 2011 has the hallmarks of plagiarism.  It appears to be a wholesale copy of someone else's analysis of this subject, including an introductory paragraph (obviously unnecessary here, and thus the result of wholesale copy and paste rather than original writing where the encyclopaedia writer would have noticed the unnecessary repetition and instead integrated xyr writing into the existing text).  I haven't managed to track down the source yet. Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article clearly needs work, however I would argue that the poem is definitely a notable piece of Australian poetry. I will make an effort to contribute where I can at some stage. •ǁ››»»&#124;~'FishSaidNo'~&#124;««‹‹ǁ• 11:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I've just re-written and referenced the article and removed the incoherent, unreferenced material derived from homework essays and crib sheets (it's widely studied both in British and Australian secondary schools). The poem is very notable, appearing in multiple anthologies of Australian literature, and as you can see in the new references I've added has been written about and analyzed in scholarly sources. The author of the article listed in Further reading calls it "one of the finest threnodies in the war literature of Vietnam". There is now plenty of material there to re-expand the article properly and many more sources which I haven't listed. Voceditenore (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks to Voceditenore, the subject is now clearly notable. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Thanks very much Voceditenore, you've accomplished what I thought to be inmpossible :) I think this debate can be closed early by an admin now, as there's no longer any grounds for deletion. Millermk90 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 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.