Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Elliots


 * 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. without any prejudice to recreation Secret account 13:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Elliots

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

This article appears to be part of a school assignment as there have been other articles recently on the same short story. The articles are full of original research and unreferenced opinion and analysis. I have added the other articles that I can find today below. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I can only find one other at the moment:
 * Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just found that User:NawlinWiki deleted another version of The Elliots earlier, but I don't know how to see if the author is the same as either of these - but I suspect not. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete This is a personal essay, not an article. Edward321 (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete--right, this is what passes for a researched paper these days. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for The Hemingway story "Mr. and Mrs. Elliot,” which has sufficient criticism that it should be notable.  75 hits in GScholar, of which about half are criticism. Several of the items there are academic articles specifically devoted to the story. Obviously the article must be improved, butt he references show that it is possible . Why did none of the people above even think to look for references?  DGG (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't have to look in a database to know that a Hemingway story is notable. The article is still a personal essay. While I probably don't know as much about Wikipedia policy as I should, you don't have to assume that a. I needed to look and b. I didn't. Fault me for lack of WP knowledge, but not for common sense, please. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I, too, have no problem with an article on this short story and if I thought either article was salvagable I would have tagged them as such and not brought them to AfD. However, neither of these essays are the article we need. Also, if the short story was not notable I would have PRODed them before bringing to AfD. What I was picking up was a series of essays on this short story. I'm sure there have been others, but I can't now find them. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. While the short story is definitely notable and worthy of an article, this is definitely a personal essay, one which has no possibility of being salvaged as an article. No prejudice here should someone want to write an article on the story. Redfarmer (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed; this is not an article. Luinfana (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Nominator says he or she nominated similar articles for deletion. So, where are the discussion for those deletions.  As DGG points out deletion should be based on the merits of the topic -- not the current state of the article.  As DGG points out the topic of Hemingway's story merits inclusion.  If a series of weak articles about the story were created, under a bunch of different names, why didn't the nominator recognize that the topic itself merited inclusion?  Why didn't the nominator initiate one discussion?  Why didn't the nominator consider merging those articles, salvaging what was useful, and trimming any original research portions?
 * Keep -- definite keep for the reasons given above. Geo Swan (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply 1. The process for nominating multiple articles for deletion for the same reason is to generate a single discussion page and list the articles (see WP:BUNDLE). This means that there are not and will not be separate discussions on articles that are basically the same thing. 2. I did initiate one discussion. 3. I could not merge the articles because a) I have never read the short story in question and b) removing the original research portions would have left nothing. 4. The curse (or blessing) of a photographic memory is knowing that one has read material before, but not usually knowing where. This problem is exacerbated by the ever-changing nature of Wikipedia. I did a thorough search for the other articles I know I read on this short story, but was unable to find them. I realise that this means that they have probably been deleted and I searched for them in the deleted articles area as well. 5. I reiterate that I have no problem with a well-written, reliably sourced article on this short story. However, these essays are none of the three. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:36, 9 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.