Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vampire (novella)


 * 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The result was speedy keep: nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Vampire (novella)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The article relies mainly on the book itself and no reliable sources are given on the article. While the book seems to have somr sort of notability. It's not shown on the article. Hahc21 [ TALK ] [ CONTRIBS  ] 16:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you feel the book is notable, then the article needs cleanup, not deletion. Dricherby (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, i said in could have some notability watching the author's page. But the article itself doesn't prove to be any notable. -- Hahc21 [ TALK ] [ CONTRIBS  ] 18:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * AfD is about whether or not the article's subject is notable, not whether or not the article demonstrates notability. If the subject is not notable, the article should normally be deleted; if the subject is notable, the article should be improved to demonstrate that. Please ensure you understand the AfD process before nominating large numbers of articles. Dricherby (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. The nomination does not state a proper basis for deletion, and the article does in fact have sources.  The subject is a novel by a major 19th century Russian author, and a very quick GBooks search establishes that multiple potential sources exist in English as well as in Russian, such as  and . --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as per sources that can be added to the article. I counsel the nominator to read and heed WP:BEFORE when making future nominations. Lady  of  Shalott  00:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added 2 reliable linked sources, expanded and copy-edited the article, and added a note on the available modern English translation of the work. INeverCry  20:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep wow, this article is of obvious benefit to Wikipedia. Evermore2 and INeverCry are doing some astounding work on Russian literature, and look what happens. Perplexed, Сол-раз (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've seen the great amount of work done on the article. It is pretty different from when i nominated it. I withdraw the nomination. I feel the nomination helped the article to wrap contributors to get the article guideline-ready. Regards. -- Hahc21 [ TALK ] [ CONTRIBS  ] 22:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that while the article has been improved, that is not the purpose of AfD. Especially for a new article, you should have just tagged it for the deficiencies. You don't take to AfD an article whose subject you believe to meet our notability requirements. Lady  of  Shalott  22:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm afraid there's been some serious misunderstanding behind this nominataion. Re: The article relies mainly on the book itself and no reliable sources are given on the article. - On the contrary: the article relies mainly on the prominent Soviet scholar I.G.Iampolsky's commentaries, - the fact that they happened to be published in the Vol.3 of the Complete A.K.Tolstoy doesn't make them 'affiliated' in any way. The word Комментарии in the original Russian language footnote was supposed to be the key one. That was my fault, of course, not to make all this clear from the beginning. Sorry, and thank you, everybody, for help. -- Evermore2 (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2012 (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.