Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Canterbury Tales: The Reeve Prologue


 * 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   delete. No argument advanced of separate notability. Merge is counter-indicated for copyvio'd material. Closure is without prejudice to a redirect. j⚛e deckertalk 14:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The Canterbury Tales: The Reeve Prologue

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Dubious article about a prelude to The Canterbury Tales. I guess it would be notable if we could demonstrate that it exists, but the text here is copyvio from another non-free site and a dump of -- well, it's not a table of context, but there's no context given to describe what the list means. Almost speedy because of the copyvio, but not quite, so we're here at AfD. Mikeblas (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. This does exist, insofar as the material being covered here is the introduction to Oswald the Reeve from the General Prologue, lines 589–624. However, I can't see any basis for dealing with the General Prologue in this manner. What is sometimes called the "Reeve's Prologue" is his sermonizing at the start of The Reeve's Tale. Add in the potential copyright issues with the prose here, and I don't see anything worth retaining. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So best to delete, or redirect to The Reeve's Tale, or merge to that same topic? OMG LOL IDK. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 10:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * delete I'm not seeing keeping an article on what really isn't a separate section. Mangoe (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2015 (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.