Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Identification in Burkean rhetoric


 * 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. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  18:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Identification in Burkean rhetoric

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Survived PROD in 2006 apparently because the book discussed in the article is notable. There are no secondary sources so this appears to be original research to me. Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: completely original research framed as an essay, something Wikipedia is not for.   SITH   (talk)   15:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are sources with very substantial coverage of Burke/identification/rhetoric. The Legacy of Kenneth Burke, whole chapter; Critical Responses to Kenneth Burke, 1924-1966, Kenneth Burke and the 21st Century. SpinningSpark 19:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Per User:Spinningspark. With so much unsourced, and only an actual general source supplied, there are very possible instances of original research or at the least plagiarism, as well as issues of NPOV. On looking at the sources provided above it seems to be an editing issue, deserving of tags and possibly a rewrite, but not a notability problem deserving deletion. Otr500 (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is clearly a case for moving the article to A Rhetoric of Motives, and it should all be rewritten. But there is no need to be deleting it. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2019 (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.