Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Paper Nautilus


 * 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). WP:PROBLEMS are not grounds for deletion; the sole delete preference based on notability concerns is mitigated by the evidence of scholarship uncovered. The possibility of merging is left open to editors of the article. 23:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Paper Nautilus

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

This is a self confessed interpretation. It must violate WP:NOT Triwbe (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete - The poem itself may be notable, but the interpretation is textbook like and original research. Five of the references are from the poem itself, while the other sources appear to be from several obscure anthologys. Any useful information should be merged into the Marianne Moore article. Think outside the box 09:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, there's a big dollop of unreferenced interpretation in the article, but the poem itself is one of the best known of Moore's works, and there's plenty that's been written about it. Source, trim aggressively if needed. --Dhartung | Talk 02:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are loads of sources which write about this work at Google Scholar and Google Books. If Wikipedia is to have any claim of being a serious encyclopedia rather than a pokemonopedia then this needs to be kept. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep If the poem itself is notable (expert view required), then the article should be kept but all POV and OR material removed. If this destroys the content so that it's not worthwhile having a separate article, then it should be merged into the author's article, or a separate article relating to all her works created. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:44, 6 April 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.