454:. 3. I could not merge the articles because a) I have never read the short story in question and b) removing the original research portions would have left nothing. 4. The curse (or blessing) of a photographic memory is knowing that one has read material before, but not usually knowing where. This problem is exacerbated by the ever-changing nature of Knowledge. I did a thorough search for the other articles I know I read on this short story, but was unable to find them. I realise that this means that they have probably been deleted and I searched for them in the deleted articles area as well. 5. I reiterate that I have no problem with a well-written, reliably sourced article on this short story. However, these essays are none of the three.
411:-- Nominator says he or she nominated similar articles for deletion. So, where are the discussion for those deletions. As DGG points out deletion should be based on the merits of the topic -- not the current state of the article. As DGG points out the topic of Hemingway's story merits inclusion. If a series of weak articles about the story were created, under a bunch of different names, why didn't the nominator recognize that the topic itself merited inclusion? Why didn't the nominator initiate
339:
Sorry, I don't have to look in a database to know that a
Hemingway story is notable. The article is still a personal essay. While I probably don't know as much about Knowledge policy as I should, you don't have to assume that a. I needed to look and b. I didn't. Fault me for lack of WP knowledge, but
354:
I, too, have no problem with an article on this short story and if I thought either article was salvagable I would have tagged them as such and not brought them to AfD. However, neither of these essays are the article we need. Also, if the short story was not notable I would have PRODed them before
321:, of which about half are criticism. Several of the items there are academic articles specifically devoted to the story. Obviously the article must be improved, butt he references show that it is possible . Why did none of the people above even think to look for references?
376:
While the short story is definitely notable and worthy of an article, this is definitely a personal essay, one which has no possibility of being salvaged as an article. No prejudice here should someone want to write an article on the story.
116:
233:
444:
1. The process for nominating multiple articles for deletion for the same reason is to generate a single discussion page and list the articles (see
123:
This article appears to be part of a school assignment as there have been other articles recently on the same short story. The articles are full of
163:
158:
355:
bringing to AfD. What I was picking up was a series of essays on this short story. I'm sure there have been others, but I can't now find them.
167:
150:
448:). This means that there are not and will not be separate discussions on articles that are basically the same thing. 2. I did initiate
417:? Why didn't the nominator consider merging those articles, salvaging what was useful, and trimming any original research portions?
319:
318:
for The
Hemingway story "Mr. and Mrs. Elliot,” which has sufficient criticism that it should be notable. 75 hits in GScholar
83:
78:
17:
87:
70:
483:
36:
482:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
154:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
459:
360:
215:
193:
132:
463:
432:
403:
386:
364:
349:
332:
310:
293:
273:
248:
219:
210:
earlier, but I don't know how to see if the author is the same as either of these - but I suspect not.
197:
136:
52:
74:
127:
and unreferenced opinion and analysis. I have added the other articles that I can find today below.
382:
289:
269:
146:
455:
428:
399:
356:
211:
207:
189:
128:
66:
58:
244:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
445:
345:
306:
203:
378:
285:
265:
424:
395:
328:
240:
124:
184:
104:
259:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
341:
302:
49:
323:
476:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
301:--right, this is what passes for a researched paper these days.
180:
176:
172:
111:
100:
96:
92:
264:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
486:). No further edits should be made to this page.
423:-- definite keep for the reasons given above.
234:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
8:
284:This is a personal essay, not an article.
340:not for common sense, please. Thank you,
141:I can only find one other at the moment:
232:: This debate has been included in the
48:. without any prejudice to recreation
7:
24:
394:Agreed; this is not an article.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
220:09:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
198:08:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
137:08:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
464:08:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
433:01:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
404:17:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
387:03:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
365:07:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
350:01:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
333:01:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
311:15:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
294:15:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
274:14:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
249:20:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
53:13:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
206:deleted another version of
503:
479:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
147:Mr. and Mrs. Elliot
44:The result was
276:
251:
237:
125:original research
494:
481:
263:
261:
238:
228:
202:Just found that
188:
170:
114:
108:
90:
34:
502:
501:
497:
496:
495:
493:
492:
491:
490:
484:deletion review
477:
257:
204:User:NawlinWiki
161:
145:
110:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
500:
498:
489:
488:
471:
469:
468:
467:
466:
451:one discussion
436:
435:
418:
414:one discussion
406:
389:
370:
369:
368:
367:
336:
335:
313:
296:
278:
277:
262:
254:
253:
252:
225:
224:
223:
222:
121:
120:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
499:
487:
485:
480:
474:
473:
472:
465:
461:
457:
456:Beeswaxcandle
453:
452:
447:
443:
440:
439:
438:
437:
434:
430:
426:
422:
419:
416:
415:
410:
407:
405:
401:
397:
393:
390:
388:
384:
380:
375:
372:
371:
366:
362:
358:
357:Beeswaxcandle
353:
352:
351:
347:
343:
338:
337:
334:
330:
326:
325:
320:
317:
314:
312:
308:
304:
300:
297:
295:
291:
287:
283:
282:Strong Delete
280:
279:
275:
271:
267:
260:
256:
255:
250:
246:
242:
235:
231:
227:
226:
221:
217:
213:
212:Beeswaxcandle
209:
205:
201:
200:
199:
195:
191:
190:Beeswaxcandle
186:
182:
178:
174:
169:
165:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
143:
142:
139:
138:
134:
130:
129:Beeswaxcandle
126:
118:
113:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
478:
475:
470:
450:
449:
441:
420:
413:
412:
408:
391:
373:
322:
315:
298:
281:
258:
229:
140:
122:
45:
43:
31:
28:
316:Strong keep
208:The Elliots
67:The Elliots
59:The Elliots
446:WP:BUNDLE
379:Redfarmer
286:Edward321
266:Redfarmer
241:• Gene93k
425:Geo Swan
396:Luinfana
117:View log
409:Comment
374:Delete.
164:protect
159:history
84:protect
79:history
392:Delete
342:Drmies
303:Drmies
299:Delete
168:delete
112:delete
88:delete
50:Secret
46:delete
442:Reply
185:views
177:watch
173:links
115:) – (
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
460:talk
429:talk
421:Keep
400:talk
383:talk
361:talk
346:talk
329:talk
307:talk
290:talk
270:talk
245:talk
230:Note
216:talk
194:talk
181:logs
155:talk
151:edit
133:talk
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
324:DGG
239:--
236:.
462:)
431:)
402:)
385:)
363:)
348:)
331:)
309:)
292:)
272:)
247:)
218:)
196:)
183:|
179:|
175:|
171:|
166:|
162:|
157:|
153:|
135:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
458:(
427:(
398:(
381:(
359:(
344:(
327:(
305:(
288:(
268:(
243:(
214:(
192:(
187:)
149:(
131:(
119:)
109:(
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.