Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolstoy on Shakespeare


 * 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   redirect to Timeline_of_Shakespeare_criticism. Consensus is for deletion, but since we have the material already, a redirect is reasonable and also allows for the history to be preserved should more sources be found Black Kite (t) (c) 03:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Tolstoy on Shakespeare

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Unnecessary and gratuitous fork, used as a coatrack to hang a long Tolstoy quote upon. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  09:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree completely with O.M. on this one. Timeline of Shakespeare criticism has this already... Tolstoy is notable, Shakespeare is notable -- but Tolstoy on Shakespeare is a footnote.  Mandsford 22:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mandsford, Sadads (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Articles on every combinations of writer A's opinion of writer B is unworkable. Tolstoy's opinions on all writers can fit perfectly well in his own article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is there any chance that anyone could look at the results of the Google Books and Scholar searches spoon-fed above? All of these comments have the appearance of guesswork rather than of being based on any examination of the readily available sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that it's a valid section in an article on Tolstoy, Phil, maybe even in an article on criticism of Willy; my position is merely that there is no evidence that this is an encyclopedic topic an sich. There's a published essay by this title, and of course it's referenced by writers on one writer or the other; but that doesn't justify an entire separate article in Wikipedia. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)-- Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  19:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If it's a 120+ page essay published by one notable author about another, and has been referenced by other writers, I would think it satisfies requirements for notability, at least under criteria #5 for WP:BK. JNW (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, what this article failed to mention is that Tolstoy on Shakespeare isn't just a foobar combination but also the title of an essay he wrote, which has a better claim to notability. However, whilst it makes sense for criteria #5 of WP:BK to apply to every book a major author has written, I don't think it makes as much sense to apply it to essays. In this case, it's been used as a reference by other writers, but I didn't find anyone writing about the essay itself. Academics have papers and essays cited all the time, and I don't think it's practical to include every essay of the major writers. So unless someone points out signficant coverage that I've missed, I suggest we transwiki the excerpt to wikiquote (or wait until the 20th November for copyright to expire and then transwiki as much as you like to wikisource), and merge the rest to Leo Tolstoy. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't you notice when (if?) you read the article that George Orwell wrote about the essay itself? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did read the article, insinuations like that don't help. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you say "I didn't find anyone writing about the essay itself" then it's pretty reasonable to assume that you didn't read the part of the article that says that Orwell did exactly that. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to my search of Google Books, which didn't turn up anything more than citations. Yes, it would have helped if I'd addressed the Orwell Essay earlier, but you seem to be insinuating that I didn't read the full article as if that invalidates my point of view, and your attempts to justify your earlier stance aren't encouraging. Can you please assure me this isn't what you meant? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What I meant was what I said, i.e. that your comment that you didn't find anyone writing about the essay itself demonstrates that you didn't read the article properly. That's not a hanging offence, but it is pretty obviously true, just as it is obviously true that the nominator and the first three other people to comment in this discussion made no attempt whatsoever to base their opinions on evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * *Groan*. There's a whole world of difference between "reading the article properly", and "reading the article properly and proving it by addressing every single sentence that others may deem evidence of notability". I don't suppose it's worth asking how your posts square with WP:NPA or WP:AGF? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Following up on my comment above. If it constituted a few passages, a few pages, or even a chapter as part of a larger publication then it wouldn't merit an article, but 'Tolstoy on Shakespeare' was the title of an independent publication, and is part of the author's bibliography. JNW (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2010 (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.