Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Durham Proverbs


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn. Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Durham Proverbs

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Blatant WP:OR that fails WP:NOT. Ironholds (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree this article has serious issues with original research, but there's clearly enough sources out there to form an encyclopaedic article. This article is definitely fixable, and at the very worst, the original research sections need deleting. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. First page of G book search alone shows plenty of sources. Probably more on databases. The article does need clean-up and I'll watch and try to get to it, but am busy elsewhere at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly some sections of the article are problematic and need some attention, notably the translations, but the subject is clearly notable and has substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep agree with above. There are plenty of scholarly articles to use to write the article, so no need to delete, rather needs fixing. If no one can work on it right off the bat, remove the sections that aren't sourced and that should fix most of the issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete . The article makes excessive use of the template. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And why is that a problem (whatever you mean by "excessive")? Is the use of a template you don't like sufficient reason to delete an article on a clearly notable subject in your opinion? Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Another problem was a redlink to William Horman, but that seems to have been fixed, sort of. I see more redlinks creeping in. Seriously, this is a daft nomination and should be snowballed. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Re "daft nomination" - it was original research written in a first person tone when I nominated it. Sorry for the failure to respond to anything - I've had no proper wiki-access since early Friday. Ironholds (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That joking around may be comprehensible in context on my user talk page, but it won't be comprehensible here. Uncle G (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Apologies for obscure comments above. The article was in poor shape when nominated, but a quick search would have shown that the subject is notable, discussed at some length in various books and journals. It is now clearly written and well-sourced. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not disagreeing, simply pointing out that when I nominated it, a quick search would have found it to be an originally researched essay written in the first person. Notability was never discussed in my rationale. Ironholds (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So perhaps you ought to close this AfD now? Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainment; going to scrabble around for the right template now. Ironholds (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2010 (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.