Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Squire of The Canterbury Tales


 * 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. Discounting the nominator's statement, which makes no sense, and the two redirect opinions that offer no arguments, we have clear consensus to keep.  Sandstein  18:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Squire of The Canterbury Tales

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It is totally a story. 333-blue 13:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Moved to The Squire (Canterbury Tales). RF, 2015-10-07Z14:12.
 * Redirect to The Squire's Tale... JMHamo (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sympathetic to redirect and/or merge - however the pilgrims have a role in the framing narrative. We should have an over-arching article on the pilgrims, or articles on them individually. I am quite certain there is enough RS out there! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC).


 * Keep there is, as I thought, a wealth of sources, though a proper library would be useful. I have expanded the article and re-written some of it. Many references have been added. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC).


 * Comment With fictional characters of minor importance, we often merge to a list article. Any reasons we don't create a list on Chaucer's characters? Dimadick (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There should be a list for "The Pilgrims (Canterbury Tales)" but they are not of minor importance. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC).


 * Delete or redirect as I'm weighing both equally. SwisterTwister   talk  06:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Almost infinite academic sources on the topic. Covers different issues to the Squire's Tale article. Many thanks to Rich Farmbrough for heavily improving the article. Brustopher (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Prune then merge to The Squire's Tale, as a section on the Squire (who tells the tale). This is ultimately a FORK of that.  Canterbury Tales is a very important literary work, but I do not think we ought to have more than one article on each tale.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with doing that is the interplay between the tales, the pilgrims and the characters in the tale. For example in The Reeve's Tale the character and cuckolding of the story Miller is certainly interpreted as a slight by the pilgrim Miller.  And in the instant case, as I have just added, one queer theory interpretation of the General Prologue draws The Pardoner into the discussion about the Squire, as a foil.  The Squire is also important for understanding The Knight - who is still wearing the clothes he was wearing when he returned from the war.  How, one might ask, did the Squire manage to maintain his immaculate image?
 * That's even without the obvious questions of glossing the description from the General Prologue which the original editor attempted - take for example the last line And carf biforn his fader at the table. despite six centuries the language is understandable, but we need to explain that the custom was for the senior squire to carve the meat in front of the knight (twentieth century interpretation of the line might read this as an attempt at usurpation) and therefore this reflect on the Squire's success in his chivalric endeavours.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC).


 * Keep, essentially per, above. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Brustopher's analysis. To argue that there isn't enough critical commentary on Chaucer to support an article on one of his significant characters is utter barking madness. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:19, 12 October 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.