Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wild Swans at Coole (poem)


 * 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. Passes WP:NBOOK (non-admin closure) Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 11:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Wild Swans at Coole (poem)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a book of poetry. Notability is not inherited either. Just because someone is a famous poet does not mean there should automatically be an article about every poem he wrote. This "article" is nothing more than a simple statement that he wrote this poem along with the poem itself. This can just as easily be included in a list of his poems, together with an external link. Stedrick (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep- No Notability. Nothing indicates there is something about this particular poem that it needs its own article. Phearson (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - whatever about the quality of the stub so far, if this subject is deleted as 'not notable', then Wikipedia should drop any pretense to being an encyclopedia. See scholarly articles. RashersTierney (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:NBOOK #5 would mean this obviously passed the notability guideline even if there wasn't a ton of material on the poem. What kind of silly nomination is this? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep For reasons it is hardly necessary to go into any major work by WB Yeats is going to be extensively studied and have a good deal written about it. As pointed out above, that is demonstrably true here. Sooner or later, somebody will create a proper WP article. In the meantime, it remains a stub but we do not delete articles for that reason. --AJHingston (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep very well known and widely analysed work by major poet. v weak article, but that's an editing issue. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Part of me wants to close this, but I'll let the appropriate consensus be hashed out instead of jumping the gun. Put simply, this is a major literary work. WP:NBOOK #5 is relevant, but even if it wasn't, there is undoubtedly a ton of coverage out there. This needs expansion, not deletion. WilliamH (talk) 13:28, 21 January 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.