Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L(a


 * 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

L(a

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Declined PROD. The text of the poem belongs at Wikisource, if anywhere, and the unreferenced original research analysis which follows does not belong on Wikipedia. KurtRaschke (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Original research indeed, nothing useful. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Rewrite per Zagalejo. I forgot that poems can be notable. Ten Pound Hammer , his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Though the article in its current form isn't really appropriate, e.e. cummings is a pretty famous poet, and this specific poem has been analyzed in several sources:, , , etc. Zagalejo^^^ 19:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This might be a good source if someone can access it. I stubbed the article to get rid of the OR and text of the poem, which might have been a copyvio as presented. However, the article still has a long ways to go. This is a rather difficult poem to describe, so if anyone wants to help, feel free. Zagalejo^^^ 20:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Though poems can be notable (and I remember reading this one back in high school), my inclination is to be cautious about inserting large numbers of articles on individual poems (epics and other particularly famous poems notwithstanding). I'm not sure whether or not this article should be deleted or merged into a list of e.e. cummings poems, but I'm somewhat dubious of it meriting its own article.Tyrenon (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep While the article as it is needs serious work, there are more than enough sources on the subject to meet notability guidelines. I would also add that poems of any size can meet the notability guidelines so long as they receive adaquate coverage. To reject all but epic poems and "particularly" famous poems would be to show a bias against entire genres and poetic movements such as Imagism. However, the brevity of the work is not excuse for the brevity of an article, and a major expansion should be done to discuss the importance of this work to the history of poetry. Mrathel (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There appear to be enough separate sources for this particular poem to be individually worthy of an article.  I know of no more restrictive guideline for poems other than general notability, and the article already meets that in its current state. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable poet with an interesting new type of poem. Link to the college site, plus the mentions of it in books, proves its notable as well.   D r e a m Focus  22:52, 29 May 2009 (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.