Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House Made of Dawn (analysis)


 * 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.  

Speedy deleted, Closing as per snowball, strong policy argument --Improv 07:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

House Made of Dawn (analysis)
Fails WP:OR Nacon kantari  04:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete did someone post their term paper? Opabinia regalis 04:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MER-C 04:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There seems to be some history behind this to do with mediation and having this article split from the one on the book itself. Having read it all, the bottom line is that this article as it currently stands isn't the sort of thing we do. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Interpret all rules. It can be easily verified, which is the reason for WP:OR. Further, since House Made of Dawn is very symbolic, it is essential. Further, visitors are made very aware by the title that the entry is original research.--HQCentral 05:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the solution would be to add links (on the article about the book) to sites where literary scholars explain all the symbols in the novel? That said, that article is already replete with references to people who I presume are either scholars doing just that or people doing impressions of scholars doing just that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:OR is a core policy of Wikipedia, whereas WP:DIAR is merely an essay.  Though even the latter makes mention that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Orginal research essays do not belong here. Resolute 05:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:IAR doesn't mean you get to post whatever you feel like. Danny Lilithborne 06:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedying as per snowball clause, strong policy argument --Improv 07:05, 7 October 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.