Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Versificator


 * 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. There is no consensus to delete, and merge discussions can occur outside of Afd. Nice job finding the sources, but please add them to the article to improve it. :) Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Versificator

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a minor device in the novel and is mentioned in one paragraph in the entire novel. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 17:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A merge discussion can proceed on the article talk page. Bu tthis imoprtant fictional element in one of the most famous and important works of fiction in the last 100 years is worth including in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the novel article. Article is a fancruft and no use in this context besides the novel. Remember that notability is not inherited. By the way, the word actually means "poet". Leave  Sleaves  17:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Orwell was using the word in the sense of a mechanical versifier or poetaster. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. A Google Books search finds plenty of sources that discuss this. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: per Phil Bridger. Schuym1 (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Phil Bridger and ChildofMidnight. I have not read 1984 recently but am sure the versificator is discussed in more than one paragraph? I seem to recall a popular song that recurs throughout the book. Anyway, an important concept in a very important work - deserves an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect: There are plenty of Google book hits, but none of them constitute a substantive discussion- instead, most of them just mention and define it, leaving me to believe that there aren't sufficient sources to support an entire article. If there's been significant discussion of it somewhere, that's fine, but just a definition of the term isn't enough to make an article.  --Clay Collier (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know which ones you looked at, but those I checked also tended to enter into a short discussion of Orwell's motivations for including such a device in the book, generally concluding that it was a comment on a trend Orwell had observed towards unremarkable and bland consumerised entertainment. While this tends to only take a few sentences, it seems to be enough to make the references non-trivial. JulesH (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Merge: It's not even mentioned in Nineteen Eighty-Four: does it really need a separate article? Redirect/merge until such a time as the content justifies a separate article. Rd232 talk 12:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Phil Bridger. Plenty of sources.  The article may remain a short one, because there isn't much to say, but what there is is worth saying.  JulesH (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2009 (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.