Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slow reading


 * 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. Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Slow reading

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research by User:Johnmiedema. It is a copy and paste from his own blog, and 2 of the references quoted are from his own blog posts. Another reference is from something alegedly written by Nietzsche, but this article really has little to do with it. The last reference is from a single news editorial and has little to do with this article again, besides its title. Here is a copy of his references:


 * - His blog.
 * Slow Reading Lists (and the meaning of Slow Reading). Some stuff by Nietzshe, not peer reviewed, it's just a preface from a novel I think.
 * The news article.
 * Another blog entry of his.

Althena 07:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. Also violates WP:POV   ARended Winter 08:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge I can only see this being notable as part of the Slow movement article, guiven that there's only one decent source. Will also need a POV-purge. Totnesmartin 12:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the Neitzsche quote is, in fact, relevant. It adds context. As one person in this debates says the quote is alleged, that can be fixed by a simple citation.

If it would be better to include slow reading as a part of the "slow" lifestyle article, so be it, but as far as I know it is much better to have more information than less. Slow reading as a learning style is being researched by educators even as we speak, and I imagine that it would be a good idea to add research to this page, rather than delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittent (talk • contribs) 13:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC) — Kittent (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I do think some revisions are in order, and I appreciate the feedback. Few notes:

Re: content - My intended content changes include: more scholarly research on the subject, better integration with the Slow movement literature, comparison to related concepts such as close reading, and contrast with others such as speed reading.

Re:references - I think the Nietzsche quote is a very appropriate historical reference. It is widely cited on the web, and often used as search keywords to find my blog on the subject. I intend to keep that reference. - Re: news editorial, Waters is Executive Humanities Editor at Harvard University Press, and wrote a very good article on the subject. Unfortunately, her article is no longer available on the open web. I think this link should be kept as a reference to that article. User:Johnmiedema — Johnmiedema (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Merge to Slow movement per Totnesmartin. GlassCobra (Review) 16:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Merge. I am undertaking edits to the article to more clearly articulate the dual origins of Slow reading. The concept traditionally comes from the study of philosophy and literature, long before the Slow movement. The Slow movement has revitalized interest. Merging with just the Slow movement would eclipse the traditional origin. Please look for revisions to the entry in the next couple of weeks. User:Johnmiedema 8:59, 2 October 2007 (EST)

Please see extensive revisions to the current article. Major changes include: complete re-write from objective POV, section on related terms, discussion of dual origin in philosophy/literature and slow movement, annotation of research and related materials from multiple independent sources. I believe this answers all the original concerns. Please indicate if anything further is required to take the entry off the deleted list. Regards, John User:Johnmiedema 16:30, 4 October 2007 (EST)


 * Keep - I nominated this for deletion because of the reasons listed above (original research). However I think that now it might stand on its own and thanks to the new sources, the re-write, and now it does look like a more notable topic than just original research from a blog. Althena 06:11, 8 October 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.