Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Love (story)


 * 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) – Davey 2010 Talk 15:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Old Love (story)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not see any credible assertion of notability for this short story. Initially I simply changed this article to a redirect to the article on the collection in which it appears (which actually seems the best outcome to me), but the edit was reverted by the page author & I thought that I would take it to AfD as a courtesy TheLongTone (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am not sure how can I add more reliable cites than a newspaper and the site of the author himself. All the four cites are indeed notable and the article deserves to be kept. May be the plot is too big for such an article which could be trimmed down. - The Herald (here I am) 16:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes which now very clearly illustrate the notability on the story. Thus my vote changes to Speedy Keep.. - The Herald (here I am) 15:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – That's better. Sorry I haven't got time right now but I'll read the new sources later. Hopefully we can get some more opinions here. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 29.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 16:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per new sources. Redirect – to A Quiver Full of Arrows. The only in-depth discussion of this story that I could find was to an ezinearticles.com page, which should have been cited because parts of the article seem to be a close paraphrase. Unfortunately it's a self-publishing site and blacklisted, so it doesn't count as an RS. The other cites were just brief mentions. Sorry, but there's not enough material for a separate article. The destination article doesn't have a plot summary for this story, so that could be done, briefly, like the other stories. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it actually possible to discuss anything by Jeffrey Archer in depth?TheLongTone (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The story is the subject of post-graduate programs in India and is being used for education purposes in Indian High schools hence passes #5 of the notability threshold. I'll ping  to reconsider.    Jim Car ter  07:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – OK, changing my !vote to keep. There is this, and the sources found by The Herald, which show that it was not only a play but also a Masterpiece Theater production on TV. I guess that's notable. I still think it ought to be mentioned in A Quiver Full of Arrows. ( Could you take care of that?) – Margin1522 (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment'' If the above about this bit of typing being used in post grad courses is true, God help the Indian education system. But I guess I withdraw my nomination.TheLongTone (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Margin1522, I'll take it. TheLongTone, its a story which I have studied in ISC. So I think its notable and hence created it. Thanks all. - The Herald (here I am) 15:15, 6 February 2015 (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.