Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonnet 37(2nd nomination)

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. - Mailer Diablo 10:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnet 37[edit]

After one year, and a previous AFD, this article still contains no cnotent. It is only a quote Sefringle 06:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is a famous poem by William Shakespeare. If this was to be deleted, maybe all of them should be deleted. And as for the statement of 'having no content', there is a table with the poem in it. The article is fully referenced. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It is very short and only a quote at time of writing, but I am sure it could be expanded if someone looks closely enough. Thunderwing 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep; per Extranet --Mhking 22:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Without comment on whether each sonnet should have its own page, I note that I have been trying to add content to the pages, for instance Sonnet 35, Sonnet 22, and so forth. I hope that if the AFD votes for deletion I can be allowed some way to rescue this work before it is deleted. Jlittlet 01:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jlittlet nicely shows how an article like this could conceivably be expanded. It's Shakespeare, so I'm sure there are mounds of critical commentaries available. (Not necessarily online, but definitely in books.) Zagalejo 06:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to the corresponding page in WikiSource, which has the text of the poem. (Indeed, we could make soft redirects for all the sonnets, but that gets a little tedious.) If anyone wants to add content, they can always get it back from the page history. YechielMan 07:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing here except the text and two links. If an encyclopedic article hasnt yet been written we shouldnt have an article. John Vandenberg 10:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 08:32, 25 April 2007 (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.