Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Works of Alan Watts

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) Jdcomix (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Works of Alan Watts[edit]

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

No references. Written in a personal tone addressed to the reader rather than a formal impersonal tone. Contains opinions amounting to original research. A list of the works of Alan Watts can be and should be in Alan Watts. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominated for deletion less than an hour after creation, for issues that are fixable by editing, on a bibliography list for a clearly notable writer? What else. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this is a notable topic for an article but once promotional and personal opinion wording is removed like "Alan Watts was one of the greatest orators and philosophers of the 20th century." and "I believe many of Watts' greatest works were his lectures and I think that ... " theres not much left of the intro, where are the sources that discuss Watts' lectures, and why aren't his numerous books included (see main article)? suggest delete and or draftify. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page has a negligible number of visitors and it has potential to be a good article once the introduction is sorted out and the rest of it is finished. It shouldn't be included under Alan Watts as this page has potential to be quite long and it is not necessarily related to the life of Alan Watts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gestcom (talk • contribs)
Keep. Deletion is normally a last resort. See WP:ATD. All problems stated here are fixable by normal editing. I agree with Gestcom that including this long list of works in Alan Watts would clutter it unnecessarily.

—Syrenka V (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a "books" section to make it more rounded but it is mostly extracted from Alan Watts. The introduction has been refined and is open for improvement. Gestcom (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Gestcom[reply]

I think we are all agreed that the original criteria for deletion has been resolved. "No references. Written in a personal tone addressed to the reader rather than a formal impersonal tone. Contains opinions amounting to original research. A list of the works of Alan Watts can be and should be in Alan Watts". To that end, all words (save the introduction) are referenced; The personal tone has been addressed; There is no original research in the article; and a list of alan's works would only clutter Alan Watts both as a list of his books (which already exists) and as a transcript of parts of his lectures. Thanks everyone! Gestcom (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Gestcom[reply]

Comment It may well be the case that an article about the works of Alan Watts is likely to be notable, but when I first saw it, almost all of the content consisted of extremely long quotes. I have removed the excessive quotes with an explanation on the article talk page.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude you just blanked 99% of the page?! Gestcom (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Gestcom[reply]

Yes, and I explained why. You are new, so you don't yet know, but you should never revert another edit without a good explanation. --S Philbrick (Talk) 14:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if we could continue this on the talk page, thanks. Gestcom (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Gestcom[reply]

Consider moving to Draft I accept Andy's point that this is a clearly notable writer and thus we ought to have an article. However, it is not close to ready yet. If the principal author follows my advice(Talk:The Works of Alan Watts) and contacts the copyright holder of the audio and arranges for a license for transcripts, it is my opinion that the material belongs in Wikisource, not here, and then this article could contain links to the Wikisource material along with brief excerpts and some further discussion. However, that's not something that's gonna happen in a few minutes, so my suggestion is that this should be moved to draft space until it's in better shape. That's the whole point of draft space, to act as a repository for articles that are quite ready for mainspace this one isn't ready yet but could be in the near future.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on draftification: WP:DRAFTIFY says little about the circumstances under which draftification is appropriate, but it refers back to its currently inactive predecessor WP:Article incubator, which makes it clear that incubation/draft status is a last resort for articles that would otherwise require deletion. Stubs should never be deleted just for being stubs, and they should never be draftified just for being stubs either. And the present page is not a stub when considered as a whole anyway; only its blanked summaries of the talks look that way. WP:ATD, WP:NOTCLEANUP, AND WP:DINC apply just as much to draftification as to outright deletion.

—Syrenka V (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2017 (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.