Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonnet 151


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sonnet 151


Wikipedia articles are not mere copies of source texts, and this is all that this is and all that it has ever been. There is no actual encyclopaedia article content anywhere in the history. This is better as a redlink, inviting editors to come and write an actual encyclopaedia article here. Note that Wikisource has had this source text nearly two years longer than this article has existed, so there is no excuse for keeping this source text around for transwikification (nor, indeed, any excuse for adding this raw source text to Wikipedia in the first place). Uncle G (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Shakespeare's sonnets. Why ever would we want to delete this altogether?  While the current article doesn't pass our standards for being an article — and the same with 152 — it's clearly a valid article topic, and (as we can see with 153) can be expanded into a decent article.  To remove the link altogether would be potentially confusing and wouldn't at all help a reader.  Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To remove the page would leave a redlink inviting editors to create an actual article. Nobody said that it wasn't a valid topic.  But what we have here isn't an article.  It's empty.  It has zero article content, and never had content at any point in its history.  Better a redlink, inviting creation of an article where we are currently missing one, than a bluelink, be it a redirect or this content-free page. Uncle G (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that this article used to be a redlink for the very same reason you want it to be, and this is what editors have decided to make it so far. Wrad (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And criterion for speedy deletion #A3 is there for ensuring that we don't recolour redlinks with empty articles. We're only here at AFD in the first place because deletion of an empty article was challenged.  Uncle G (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that supports an argument against a redirect. You are just going to restart the cycle all over again and it won't do any good as a redlink. Wrad (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It won't start any "cycle" at all. There hasn't been a cycle here.  There has simply been creation of an empty article to recolour a redlink.  The rationale that underpins speedy deletion criterion #A3 is that we don't keep them, because all that they do is prevent people from seeing where articles haven't been written yet.  And no article has been written here, yet. Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Your argument is that a redlink is preferable to a stub, which is not a valid reason for a delete. The criterion is notability, and Shakespeare's sonnets are ipso facto notable; and as the other sonnet articles show, sonnet stubs can and do get expanded. --Xover (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My argument is that a redlink is preferable to an empty article. This article is empty.  It is not a stub, and there is no stub content anywhere in its history.  My argument is criterion for speedy deletion #A3 in fact.   Uncle G (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that supports an argument against a redirect. You are just going to restart the cycle all over again and it won't do any good as a redlink. Wrad (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an argument against a redirect in that a redirect does not encourage editors to write a missing article. A redlink does.  Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Might I perhaps suggest you peruse WP:NOEFFORT and consider withdrawing your nomination to enable a speedy keep; particularly in light of the new content of the article? --Xover (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect if I understand the logic of this nomination correctly, a redlink is preferable to a redirect because it invites people to make an actual encyclopedia article. But you'd think there would be one by now and if there is a chance at an encyclopedia article, this would at the very least be a foundation to build upon, and an editor can find it by going through the history.  I do not think deletion is a suitable answer here. JuJube (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason that there isn't is very likely that no-one has noticed that this article is empty. A redlink at Template:Shakespearesonnets flags that.  A bluelink does not.  What has happened here is that someone has tried to turn the link blue by adding a navigation template, some source text, and no encyclopaedia article content.  That really isn't the way to recolour redlinks. Uncle G (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, as I said above, the problem with that is that this article used to be a redlink for the very same reason you want it to be, and this is what editors have decided to make it so far. Wrad (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Editors also decide to fill articles with random text. We don't keep those bluelinked for the same reason that we don't keep empty articles: we like redlinks to show us where we don't actually have articles, yet.  Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Extremely strong Keep Every individual sonnet by shakespeare has a substantial individual literature that can be added. I'm glad someone is beginning to fill them in, but i regret they didn't think to go a little further. But already the article is not an empty link, nor does it contain just the text of the sonnet. The poetical structure of the sonnet is discussed, and its further use in  literature. already an acceptable stub. Granted, this additional material was not yet there when the article was afd'd. DGG (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've added some content to the article, and there's a lot more where it came from. It's one of his dirtier poems, so naturally people have a lot to say about it nowadays. Anyway, I hope this simplifies things. Wrad (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Extremely notable topic. Now has content & references. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:27, 5 December 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.