Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Quietude


 * 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 tentatively to Edgar Allen Poe, though the exact target is open to editorial discretion. Consensus seems to indicate this is not notable enough to warrant its own article, however. lifebaka++ 17:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

School of Quietude

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

Article whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines. SouthernNights (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am proposing to delete this article because the subject fails to meet our notability guidelines. In this case, all the references in the article are to blog sites, and the term itself appears to have been created and promoted by a single blogger. It also appears this neologism is not in wider usage, having only a few thousand hits on Google, with this article entry being the first hit. While this subject is interesting and I'm a fan of Ron Silliman's blog (the poet who originated the term), this isn't worth its own article. Perhaps we could also consider merging this article with Silliman's article? --SouthernNights (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed deletion. I read the article, found it uniquely informative, and it appears that the term has historical origins in Poe, although this reference does require a citation. Aletheon (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ron Silliman. A Google Scholar search suggests that the term is in use but only in reference to Silliman's use of it. Chick Bowen 22:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  JForget  22:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, sources in the article are all blogs. A book says it was invented by Edgar Allen Poe. Therefore it is safe to delete the article as nonsense, synthesis or vanity. No prejudice if recreated about Poe's concept. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the quote PhelgmR found. That such a notable poet invented the phrase is sufficient evidence, when found in a clear RS. That the term has been used by later writers just requires some rather extensive editing. DGG (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Ron Silliman regarding his use, mentioning the cited Poe origin. --MCB (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as verifiable content on a discrete encyclopedic topic of interest to our readers, and associated with an independently-notable figure. Merge to Silliman's article unless something longer than a stub can be written. Skomorokh  13:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Week Keep - If blogs are the way poets communicate with each other nowdays maybe an exception could be made to WP's general rule against them as sources in this case. The fact that Poe used the same expression does not help the topic of its modern-day use become more notable, however. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Phlegm Rooster's source says it all - this article is entirely incorrect. The term was not invented by Stillman - it was invented by Edgar Allen Poe. TruthGal (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And if it to be merged anywhere, it would be to Poe. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Ron Silliman per MCB above. Seems to be a neologism specific to Ron Silliman (and irrelevant to Poe) in its current usage and as defined on the page. thither (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Current usage is attested by blogs. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2008 (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.