Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poetry for Poetry's Sake


 * 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 redirect to A. C. Bradley.  MBisanz  talk 01:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Poetry for Poetry&

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An article about a lecture in 1901. While its author, A. C. Bradley, is notable enough for an article, this particular lecture isn't. This article has been an orphan since at least 2009, if not since its creation in 2008, and if left to remain will almost certainly continue to be one. —  Scott  •  talk  23:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep seems to receive decent enough attention in the Google books search results. Has the nominator looked? It does seem to be as advertised: a sufficiently notable lecture. The article on Bradley gives this lecture short shrift and describes his most notable achievements as having been in Shakespearean studies. Still, Google books results seem sufficient. And of course it took all of one second to de-orphan, with a link from the author's main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * also, as the nominator points out: the article creator and its subsequent editors never bother to add a link to it, for some reason. And I see that it was never properly categorized, either, as a work about poetry. So I don't agree that its neglected state is necessarily a comment on the notability of subject matter -- it was also just kind of hard to find the thing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete or WP:STUBIFY as WP:Original research. The article does not cite or mention any sources other than the lecture under discussion or attempt to give any context or reaction to it, so appears to be the article creator's personal essay based on this primary source alone. WP:No original research is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, and the section WP:PRIMARY states: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources..." While it may be possible to write an article about this lecture based on reliable, published secondary sources (such as the Google Books search results), this isn't such an article at present and does not serve as a useful basis on which to construct such an article; anyone wishing to write such an article would be better off starting from scratch. 10:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point. The article as currently written is an unreferenced essay and I agree that TNT would apply. Change to neutral, unless someone else during this Afd wants to tackle this and rescue the article. I don't. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the author A. C. Bradley. Could be a search term.Borock (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That article already has links to his collected works online, so readers can read the original lecture.Borock (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also anything said about the essay will also be about its author's views.Borock (talk) 04:26, 9 August 2016 (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.