Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romanticism and Revolution

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. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanticism and Revolution[edit]

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

Per original prod and prod2, this is an essay, not an encyclopedic article. Intrinsically WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 16:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article contains numerous good sources which testify to the notability of the topic such as Romanticism, Revolution, and Language; Romance and Revolution: Shelley and the Politics of a Genre; The French Revolution and the English Poets; Anger, Revolution, and Romanticism. As there is abundant material of this sort, it seems a straightforward matter to summarise it in an encyclopedic way. Any deficiencies in the current draft may be remedied by ordinary editing in accordance with our policy and deletion would obviously be unhelpful in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete personal essay by someone who couldn't even spell Tintern Abbey correctly with a title so broad, it could never possibly hope to become an encyclopedia article (decent title though, i wonder if there's a notable book of this name. Worth nicking if not.)Bali ultimate (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I do not disagree with Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) on the fact that this article is actually well sourced and has a lot of potential content, the fact remains, in my opinion, that it will never be able to be anything other than an essay. I don't believe that cleanup is an option here, because in order to write about the potential influence of one thing on another, you have to write an essay. There is no way to write this article and have it be an encyclopedic work. While some of the content on this page may belong on the Romanticism article, I don't believe that an article on this topic alone should exist. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 00:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title is too vague to allow this essay to be rewritten as a suitable encyclopaedia article, or even replaced by a stub. An article on The French Revolution in literature or The French Revolution in English Romantic poetry would be another matter, but the content here isn't going to help in writing one. EALacey (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Col. Warden. It is a well-referenced and well-written article, and any problems can be addressed with editing. Warrah (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warrah (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- an essay which is unlikely to ever become a legitimate encyclopedia article. Reyk _YO! 01:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author should write a longer article and try to get it published in print, for money! WP is for definite (and sometimes boring) facts about clearly defined topics.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject of numerous books already cited so, notable and sourced. What remains is regular editing which is not a reason to delete. -- Banjeboi 15:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ottava Rima, an administrator on Wikiversity, has expressed an interest in importing this article for use on that project, should this be closed as delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Dlabtot (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It can never be anything but a personal essay with that title. In itself, being well sourced is not a reason to keep.--SabreBD (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, stubify, and send to the article rescue people. This is quite obviously an essay at the moment, but the positing of a connection between romanticism and revolution isn't excetly a new discovery. Rather it is an encylcopedic subject. The current essay seems to focus on literature when revolutionary romantic figures were active in ther fields. For example, in music there is Beethovens riping out the dedication of the 3rd symphony when Napoleon declared himself emperor, Wagner literally manning the barricades in the 1849 Dresden uprising and Rimsky-Korsakov's support of the students in the 1905 uprising. There's even an orchestra specialising in music of roughly the first half of the 19th century called Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique. So I reject SabreBD's claims that this title can only ever be covered by an essay.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is original synthesis of primary documents, it doesn't belong here. I don't see how it could possibly be rescued, there's nothing usable here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while i agree that there is a possible encyclopedia article on the intersection of these two ideas as manifest in europe at this time, this article, its content and title, and its use of references, is wholly unencyclopedic. if someone wants to userfy the references, and attempt to find out if a new article could be written based on them and others, fine, but they would have to be a widely expanded collection of references which all explicitly argue for the connection between these two movements, and not just evidence that the 2 can be connected. We all know they are connected, but in an article like this we have to show THEIR work, not OUR work.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is an essay. That's fine in itself, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. --Klein zach 03:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly an essay and a synthesis. Interesting, yes. Encyclopedic, no.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:12, 18 February 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.