Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of Remains

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, but reduce to stub. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Law of Remains

The Law of Remains (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete. It looks like a research paper and I could not find a suitable scope to nominate it for speedy though it should be! Well, clearly falls under WP:NOR. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I was in the process of Prodding this when WP:TW screwed things up. I can't tell that it's a copyright violation of anything on the internet, but it certainly looks like one. Either way, it suffers from WP:NPOV, likely WP:OR, a lack of WP:RS, and a host of other issues. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If I type in Mona Lisa, will I not get a topic that deals with speculation on subject? Well this can't possibly be fact, thus how is what I've written any different? I clearly state at the beginning of the article that this is meant to open up Abdoh's play, to simply expose people to an important artist's work, that nothing is definitive.. I've used one source, the only published book I could find on the man, and if you want page numbers for the quotes in the body of the work I will provide them. I put this up online as quickly as possible, so making it slightly more presentable is in order. But I can't really comprehend claiming this is original research if you're going to turn around and allow anything on Mayans, Aztecs, Catholocism, etc, to be written as fact. There's no such thing. Those topics are much more debatable than mine. Anything written about any of those topics can only deal with one (maybe more, but not some sort of total) viewpoint, nothing is set in stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatart (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, I understand now, my piece is in need of editing. I'll get to it.

• Delete. It's not even clear what this is supposed to be about. --Itub (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Clearly a notable play, but the article is rubbish. Writer and others may improve it. If not, we can always relist for deletion later. Not convinced that content is a reason for deletion if subject is notable. Can always be stripped down and stubified. There used to be a saying "don't bite the noobs" - never hear it these days on WP. This guy seems keen and knows the subject, but doesn't understand how WP works (yet). Let's give him a chance.Anjouli (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually I didn't have an intention to WP:BITE him but it really looks like a research paper kind of stuff. I didn't tag it as per WP:NOTE as it completely fails even to give a clear idea on the subject matter itself. But, I do completely agree with your point to help this author whatever the way we can. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 16:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A mostly favorable New York Times review shows it is notable, but it needs to be completely revamped. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Has also caught the attention of the Los Angeles Times and le Monde [1] so is definitely notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Bridger (talk • contribs) 10:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strip down to a stub and start a new article, without this speculative paper (totally non-encyclopedic content; sorry, Goatart). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • COMMENT, seems the author put alot of work into this. I will assume good faith and a lack of wiki-understanding. I have given the author a suggestion on his/her talk page to clean it up. Seems like it could be a good article.--Sallicio 20:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and Stub - There's a ridiculous amount of information here that doesn't need to be, but the play is notable. matt91486 (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2008 (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.