Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)

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 speedy keep because there is consensus to do so, and the article meets the minimum inclusion criteria for notability and references. Regarding some of the more detailed chapter summaries, it might be wise to transwiki them to Wikisource (see [1]). YechielMan 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)

obviously notable text, but current article is unsalvageably unencyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jerome's_De_viris_illustribus_Chapter_1 Nardman1 00:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. There's no point in deleting what could be a perfectly legitimate article. It would be better to post appropriate clean-up tags and try to recruit interested editors to contribute. Lots of articles have begun life as a mess and been rewritten to standards. Deletion is for crap that shouldn't be here in the first place. --NMChico24 00:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per NMChico24. AfD is not a replacement for clean-up tags. JackSparrow Ninja 01:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep encyclopaedic, if messy. This is different from the other AfDs for the individual chapters, that should indeed be condensed into this article and deleted. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 01:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The article might need to be wikified, but it certaintly isn't "unsalvageably unencyclopedic".--TBCΦtalk? 01:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep This article isn't wikified yet, but that doesn't mean it has to be deleted. Hello32020 02:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Encyclopedic at that, but should be cleaned up. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above points. Not wikified, but encyclopedic enough. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 02:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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.