Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Form of Preaching (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 of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD here was sort-of set aside by Deletion Review in light of the recreation we now have. The people there expressed some concern that it may still be original research. Reading the article, it doesn't appear to offer external sources for its claims about the various things it talks about, unless that one reference at the bottom says all this. AfD should consider carefully whether this is still original research: and delete it if it is. -Splashtalk 23:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination seconded. Original research. Delete it. I may be inclined to strike my vote later. Xoloz 06:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, the subject of the article looks like a real book. The work used as the only reference looks like it's real. Looking at the article, yeah, a lot of the content should probably be removed or fixed. But I don't see a reason to delete, unless the argument is that what's there is unsalvagable and we're better off not having it as a starting point. I don't see a reason why that's true, so I say keep and clean up for now. I'll take a few whacks at the article over the next few days. Friday (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep/clean-up I'm one of the two people who voted to delete the first time this was AfD, I also voted to undelete on deletion review (are the voting comments there not archived, they would be relevant to this vote also). The article was contributed by a graduate student as part of classwork (University of Waterloo) on the history of rhetoric. It's encyclopedic material, I'd say the problem is more verifiability than OR. It really needs the student to come back and add references of some sort. It's my understanding that this will most likely happen sometime early next term. Pete.Hurd 01:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two cited sources, and I don't see how this qualifies as "novel narrative or historical interpretation". I'm interested because I've been mulling over the idea of asigning WP work to graduate students as part of their course work. While I would not have done it in the way that the prof associated with this article did, I am mindful of some of the problems they might run across. I'm trying to understand how you think this qualifies as OR, Splash, Xolos, can you explain your reasoning? It just doesn't make sense to me. Pete.Hurd 07:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This should not have been listed; it's a manifestly encyclopedic topic, a seminal work on medieval rhetoric. If there are too few citations then more should be added. Deletion is not an acceptable alternative to editing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep & cleanup. A google on Form of Preaching Robert of Basevorn shows plenty of references to the book. Given that it's a 14th century text, it's had enough longitivity to make it worth keeping. -- JLaTondre 00:06, 16 December 2005 (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.