Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Under the Jaguar Sun


 * 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 of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix 01:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Under the Jaguar Sun
Can't quite make heads or tails of this. Seems to fail WP:NOR as it is no more than a book review. Author signed the initial article with his name and academic qualifications, which I've subsequently removed. Delete Zunaid 13:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy BJAODN, then Delete --The most intelligent Wikipedian to exist, period! 13:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This is a bad article about a book by Italo Calvino. The book is obviously notable, even though Calvino was no Kadee Strickland. Monicasdude 14:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we still BJAODN the current revision? Pretty please? [Makes Bambi eyes]--The most intelligent Wikipedian to exist, period! 15:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. per Monicasdude. Isn't there a template for {nonencyclopedic tone}?  Senator, you're no Kadee Strickland...  Kaisershatner 15:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and wikify. This article needs total improvement. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 16:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is original research but happy to review if it gets cleaned up. I've seen far too many articles kept as "needing cleanup" tht never happens. -  brenneman (t) (c)  23:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree more with brenneman  here, please see my rant...er...comment here about my take on this issue. Would people voting "keep and rewrite" please consider whether they'd want to change their votes to "delete or rewrite"? Just a thought ;) Zunaid 08:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Because deletion means the article disappears, keeping with plans to rewrite means a necessary article stays.  With that said, Keep and rewrite --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And I've done some cleanup, but it still needs some work and sourcing. I'm not the least bit familiar with the book, so I can't do much else. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Being badly written and needing cleanup isn't an appropriate ground for deletion. Otherwise Wikipedia would be down to a few thousand articles. Monicasdude 14:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Badly written content is one thing, inappropriate content (e.g. an OR book review) is something different. To badlydrawnjeff: deletion means the poor article disappears. It does not preclude a better article with the same title and decent content being created at a later point in time. Zunaid 15:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * if the article isn't there, some people might not even bother cleaning it up. I'd never think of creating this article, but I can do what I can to clean it up.  If you delete it, there's nothing there anymore.  Poof. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken. However I still feel my point - that too many articles survive AfD because of some future promised rewrite - is valid. Anyway, I'm off, will check back tomorrow to see what's transpired in the meantime. Zunaid 15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the point you make has a logical fallacy: even if a page gets deleted, the fact that it went through AfD means it existed for at last 5 days and will have been read by at least 10 pairs of eyes, including keep voters. That's long enough for someone to clean it up. Anyone who feels strongly enough could always make a copy in their user space and clean the heck out of it and resubmit the better article at a future point, even if it were to be deleted. Zunaid 12:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The original content wasn't a book review, it was a summary (rather lousy) with some NOR/NPOV-violating commentary. If that was a deletion criterion, about 80% of the pop music album articles would be deleted. Monicasdude 15:34, 30 January 2006 (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.