Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prose interpretation

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prose interpretation[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced essay Rathfelder (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is presently about prose interpretation contests, specifically the reading (oral interpretation) of prose. There are sources for that topic, such as this and the book Oral Interpretation of Prose in Interscholastic Contests. There is probably a broader topic of non-competitive interpretation. See the chapter in this which doesn't seem to have much to say about contests. And see also [1] [2]. The expression "prose interpretation" can refer to prose interpretation of poetry (ie rewriting poetry as prose). So the present page name is ambiguous, and "oral interpretation of prose" would be better for the broader topic (whereas specific contests do use "prose interpretation" as their name). There is a book called Advanced Prose Interpretation but I'm not sure exactly what type of prose interpretation it is about. We need to find out. We have an article on Oral interpretation which covers the oral interpretation of both prose and poetry, though the level of coverage indicates that the oral interpretation of prose (in a broad sense) is notable in its own right. That however does not deal with "essay". I don't know if this is an essay. For all I know all or some of the "rules" given might have been from one or more particular undisclosed contest or contests. The oldest revisions of this very old article (circa 2005 and 2006) contain references to the National Forensics League, and to rules imposed by "states" (are there state forensic leagues? I don't know). This article has a previous AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public forum debate, where it was said to be probably a spinout from our NFL article (along with other articles) ie it was originally about NFL etc contests. But it has been altered and expanded over time. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, this page is an essay. Since our sister project Wikiversity includes essays, we could transwiki this article there. Other options include stubification or some other form of rewrite, disambiguation (since this is an ambiguous expression), or redirection to oral interpretation. A further option to consider is a selective merge to National Forensics League (with a certain amount of rewriting). It was however said at the previous AfD that the NFL contests were independently notable with a considerable body of sources offered in support of that. I have no idea what the best course of action is here. The overall impression that I have is of a gigantic train wreck. James500 (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that several considerations were mooted above, a relisting for further thoughts and participants seems beneficial
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is to be kept it needs sources, and it needs to be renamed. Rathfelder (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. but consider for dividing between the geneal susbject and the contest. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve per DGG. After consideration, I think the best course of action is WP:SOFIXIT. James500 (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.