Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond's Run


 * 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Raymond's Run

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article has multiple issues, is a stub, and it seems that the original page creator has left Wikipedia. It also is written like an essay, and isn't really notable. ―sportzpikachu  my talk contribs  04:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete or Speedy Delete as G12 - Seems to have been copied from a blurb. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That blurb is four years newer than the article here, it's exceedingly likely the copying was from here to there. Wily D 09:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't offered an opinion on whether it's promotional (or even thought about it long enough to form one). I'm only evaluating the copyvio claim; the specific one was wrong, whether it was copied from somewhere else, I don't know, of course.  Wily D  09:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with in the sense that your brain.ly link on the speedy delete seemed to be copied from wikipedia, since the brain.ly answer included   in the exact place that was in the wikipedia article. The chances of the original page creator copying the   and using it as a footnote is very unlikely. ―sportzpikachu  my talk  contribs  23:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Text that reads like it was copied from a blurb well enough to be plagiarized by a blurb is still promotional text. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: satisfies WP:BK #1 and WP:GNG with an entry in Cynthia Davis and Verner D. Mitchell's Encyclopedia of the Black Arts Movement, a chapter in Carole Hamilton and Peter Kratzke's Short Stories in the Classroom and a book-length study guide published by Gale. The last two sources strongly indicate it also meets WP:BK #4. There's also extensive discussion in this article (again in a pedagogical context) and apparently an article in English Language Notes, though that doesn't seem to be online. The article is in poor shape but the arguments for deletion are far from convincing and indicate no serious attempt's been made to determine notability. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG as brought out from the sources listed by above, so a notable story from a notable collection that is also entitled to an article (quick gsearch for Gorilla, My Love brings up reviews by African American Review - here, and kirkus - here). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, seeing some keep comments leads me to believe that this is notable. But I would recommend a WP:TNT instead of keep, since it has multiple problems.―sportzpikachu  my talk contribs  04:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep although I agree that the articles needs serious improvement. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Article shows WP:POTENTIAL and has some demonstration of WP:NOTABILITY to show sources exist. Needs work and rewriting but that's editing and not an AFD process. Archrogue (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2020 (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.