Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Deceived Ones

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Deceived Ones[edit]

The Deceived Ones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of significance and no sources at all. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you fail to notice it's a source for Shakespeare's Twelfth Night and with that alone qualifies as more notable than 50% of Wikipedia articles. Try a google search.  • DP •  {huh?} 00:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DionysosProteus: The article claims that but has zero sources to back it up. As for a google search, I find a reference to the article here on wikipedia and then a bunch of links to songs called The Deceived Ones. That's all I find. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but again, it's poor research to just search for the translated English title. This is a 16th century Italian work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zachmann08, using google books or google scholar is the usual practice in such instances (webpages are going to be of limited value for sources) and searching for orig. lang. and author would also be common practice. Given that you did notice that it's a source for Shakespeare, then you should be aware that a request for verification is the appropriate response, not a proposal for deletion. You waste our time, otherwise.  • DP •  {huh?} 11:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, I'll link to just one book ref here. It's clearly a notable work. Not enough WP:BEFORE work has gone into this nomination, I daresay. (I searched for the original Italian title, btw) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - a few seconds on Google Books finds reliable sources that confirm notability. I've added them in and put in a redirect from the Italian title "Gl'ingannati" which is a likely alternative search term. Blythwood (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, absurd AfD. As said above, it requires literally a few seconds to find tons of sources in Google Books (eg. 25 pages of analysis in Performing Theory: Gendered and Erotic Complications in Cinquecento Comedies, and Some English Reverberations by Catherine Scott Burriss, about 20 pages in Shakespeare, Italy, and Intertextuality by Michele Marrapodi, or 11 pages on Renaissance Comedy: The Italian Masters, Vol. 1 by Donald Beecher). How being a source for Shakespeare's Twelfth Night is not an indication of significance is beyond me. Cavarrone 12:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- several sources discuss the subject's relationship to The Twelfth Night: Google books preview. Sufficient sources are out there to improve the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, although having sympathies with the nom in that the WP:BURDEN was on the article creator and it has been around for five years without any references, when it comes to a book like this, WP:OLDBOOK applies and with the pedigree of being a Shakespeare source (although unsourced), a bit of WP:BEFORE would have been appropriate. oh, and it is a keep, as it meets WP:GNG, article now has plenty of references. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The main source for a Shakespeare play is certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Deceived_Ones&oldid=1070374386"