Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio in Merchant of Venice

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. John254 00:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antonio in Merchant of Venice

Antonio in Merchant of Venice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Pure original research - there's certainly potential for a valid, sourced article to be written on the character, but not a scene-by-scene CliffsNotes analysis. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a group project for a college course. We are not even finished with it. There are more in depth things to come. The Act by act section just highlights his action in the play and there are comments in it on his character as well.Shakespearesister 23:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Perhaps this could become an article but it massively violates WP:OR in its current form. Pig^man 23:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Though I wish the class had taken more time to understand Wikipedia standards, some of this is still salvagable. There are sections where they do cite their sources, so it's not purely OR. Plus, an article on Antonio is certainly worthwhile. There's all kinds of critical commentary available, and we could discuss the different portrayals of the character over time. What the hell... give it time for cleanup. Zagalejo^^^ 04:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NFT and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• NFT? Have you ever read the Merchant of Venice? None of the conclusions in the article are original. Zagalejo^^^ 23:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• General comment We're supposed to be talking about the subject of the article, not the article in its current state. Wikipedia definitely has room for an article on Antonio. We can just move it to Antonio (Merchant of Venice), and, if necessary, pare it down to a stub, although again, it's really not as bad as people think it is. ("Antonio in Merchant of Venice" seems like a plausible search term, so whatever happens, we can use this as a redirect page.) Zagalejo^^^ 07:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep That we did not previously have an article is our own fault. There has been quite enough on all major Shakespeare characters for articles. The references cited are standard, and fully support the article. It would be good to have in-line citations, and they should be so advised, but the article is not unreferenced. Speedy Keep Snow Close suggested to keep us looking further like fools. We already do sufficiently. DGG (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Change to Keep (can't withdraw due to the delete votes). The problems are on their way to being addressed, and it's now adequately sourced. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. With 40 billion articles about porn stars, pokemon creatures, and obsessive gamer crap left unmolested, we ought to have a policy anybody who claims that major Shakespearean characters aren't worthy of notice ought to be banned for disruption. Not that this will ever happen. VivianDarkbloom —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree the article is much improved since it was nominated, at which time it did not have references. Improving article content at WP is in my view an extremely important goal, but AfD is a clumsy instrument for upgrading content. DGG (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to Antonio (Merchant of Venice). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:44, 13 October 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.