Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automaton Biographies

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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automaton Biographies[edit]

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

I declined a speedy deletion request as spam, but feel that this article is worthy of community consensus on its remaining here. The problem with it is that it is very badly written in a rambling style and has been apparently abandoned by its creator. The book has an ISBN but many books have ISBNs. That is nothing to do with notability, that is simply the purchase of an ISBN. I'm on the fence here, so would like to nominate the article in a neutral manner. I'm not into poetry so am not the right person to improve the article. Once improved we may be able to see the wood from the trees Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- looks like WP:NOT#ESSAY. WP:OR and/or WP:GNG/WP:RS. --EEMIV (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No news Ghits, only 2 scholar Ghits; even if kept eventually, it needs so much work that we need to start over. Bearian (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment that it needs work, substantial work, has never been in dispute. And that it needs this work is absolutely not a reason to delete the article. I was clear in my nomination that the standard of the article is very poor at present. But we must discuss whether the topic is notable and verifiable, not that it is badly written. There is no problem with rewriting the totality of the article now, today (I would if I had the skill to do it), pending the discussion on whether it should remain here. This happens often during AfDs that are on badly drafted articles. If the consensus is read as keep then a rewrite is essential anyway. Why not strip out the dross and leave a well sculpted stub? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think this book meets the WP:BK notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect There is a chance that the book might become notable, for she is notable as a novelist--there's even been an academic thesis written about her novels. But she is not yet notable as a poet. But as one of the works of a notable author a redirect is appropriate. Even if it did become notable , the material here would not be encyclopedic . We have no settled policy whether to remove enthusiastic non-encyclopedic material like this from the history by deleting it before making the redirect--I could go either way on that. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 2 January 2010 (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.