Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalevala (synopses)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Kalevala (synopses)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Some combination of WP:OR, the main article, and Wikisource. A short synopses should be at Kalevala (synopses) and the actual text on Wikisource linked there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - While it isn't actually OR from what I can tell, it isn't needed here. The main article Kalevala has enough, if anyone wants to know more about the subject matter they can find it and read it either on wikisource or on gutenberg (or heaven forbid go to a library). There are links in the footer of the article.--Lakkasuo (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a possible serious copyright infringement unless we can get assertion from original contributor User:HHHH that he/she him/herself really wrote all this, in which case Move to Kalevala/Synopsis with appropriate links to the content from Wikisource's Kalevala main page, and possibly Kalevala article in Wikipedia as well. --hydrox (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey. I can confirm that the text is entirely my creation. I can also confirm that I have not used any artistic interpretation of the work but simply summarised the literal meaning of the text. I used mainly the Kirby, Magoun and Bosley translations for reference as well as the original Finnish.
 * Any parts that are direct copies of a work are quotations and I think (can't be sure) that they were only from works that are now in the public domain.
 * I abstain from the vote as I obviously want my work to remain, but have not contributed to the project in long enough to have an opinion worth listening to. However if my opinion is desired I will say keep.
 * --HHHH (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice, I think the suitable place for this is now WikiSource with appropriate inbound links from Wikipedia. It is not espcially encyclopedic, but still a great and helpful piece of literary work. --hydrox (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mandsford 22:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep An appropriately detailed summary for such a major work. I waish we had more articles such as this. Experience shows that the best way of preserving it is to keep it a separate article.    DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per DGG. Normally I'd say "in-universe plot summary only" :-) but this is a work of great cultural importance deserving of a detailed plot summary, which can well be split off per WP:SS.  Sandstein   06:23, 7 October 2010 (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.