Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz


 * 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 per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Political interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nearly impossible to have this be a neutral article, and doesn't seem to have either notability nor encyclopedic value; at best, a one paragraph mention giving an overview might be good in the main article. Collectonian (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep article is well-sourced, topic is well-known. I'll wager people have gotten PhDs on the topic. AnteaterZot (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but needs cleanup and better focus. References in scholarly journals justifies its retention; the valid content here should not be lost.  The speculative items, and the mention of later uses of references to the film in politics, should be removed.  Kablammo (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep there are numerous scholarly articles and an entire scholarly book on the subject, and it is frequently found in textbooks and lectures in economics and history courses. For example, Divine et al America Past and Present college history textbook gives two full pages to the political interpretation of Oz (7th ed (2005) pp 592-3) The "neutral" criticism is unclear--is it too favorable to the lion or what?Rjensen (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To me, the whole article seems to be full of different pet theories about what may or may not even actually be in the book. Are these claims based on Baum's actual intentions, or just what people want to read into it? For example, in the "Political sources" section.  There is no assertion that Baum intended Dorothy to be representative of the "people" or that the cyclone is some metaphor?  People can read whatever they want into any fictional work, but it seems to me that if an article is going to discuss it, it should at least be limited to what the author himself verified.  I also still don't feel it needs its own article.  The Chronicles of Narnia have many Christian allegories (confirmed by CS Lewis), but it has no single article with them all listed.  The allegories are discussed briefly in the main series article, and in the articles for each book.  Collectonian (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See authorial intentionality. One of the central questions in literary criticism is to what extent criticism may stray from what the author "meant". Isaac Asimov once sat in on a collegiate discussion of his story Nightfall, and protested that what the students were talking about things he had never considered. "What do you know?" one responded. "You're just the author!" And he began to realize that the work had meaning independent of his own relationship to the work, that is, between the work and the reader. In any case, our only concern is what has been published about the work in reliable sources. As Baum is dead, determining which of those best fits his intent is impossible to determine. --Dhartung | Talk 00:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Although the "additional sources" section need cleanup & sources (already marked as such), there are enough references to justify keeping. SkierRMH (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes it needs clean-up and better citations, but this is a scholarly topic that has been researched and worth retaining. I also don't understand the POV criticism.  Does it need a section denying that the Wizard of Oz was political? --RedJ 17 (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the article is going to be kept, then I think a section questioning the idea, discussing whether Baum himself ever made such claims, etc does belong. Collectonian (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Baum himself in the introduction o the book said it was "a modernized fairy tale" and in the stage version 1902 he had characters talking about President Roosevelt, senators, Rockefeller --all by name--proving he had current political events in mind.Rjensen (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The encyclopedic value of this topic is huge! I remember my middle school teacher talking about it and a quick internet search returns numerous books, articles, and other discussions. Given that the topic deals with sociology, politics, and possible other things such as religion make it even that much more important. I have not taken the time to verify the sources in the current article, but there seems to be no shortages of references on this topic. As long as the article sticks to referencing already documented facts while avoiding new interpretations then this should be an important and significant article, certainly more than a paragraph. Cdavis 69 (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above, save the nom, especially WP:OUTCOMES. Well-known scholarly topic with huge number of reliable sources. Not overly slanted.  May be a bad synthesis, but that can be cleaned up. Bearian&#39;sBooties (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian'sBooties (talk • contribs)
 * Keep, this is one of the more interesting mysteries of modern literature. --Dhartung | Talk 00:01, 18 November 2007 (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.