Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Western (2nd nomination)

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 Wily D 10:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Western

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contents violates WP:PLOT. The book may be notable or not (I cannot tell from the existing references), but the current contents do not support it. BenTels (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Speedy close. The nominator hasn't given a valid reason for deletion, as opposed to cleanup. There are four off-line references, for which we should WP:assume good faith without evidence to the contrary. I've also found A Step Over the Edge: the Image of Sport in Klise's the Last Western, published in the Journal of Sport & Social Issues. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator apparently wasn't aware of the previous failed Afd a few weeks before. Nothing's changed. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep and speedy close per lack of WP:BEFORE. Tons of sources listed in the article and in the previous AfD of few weeks ago (392 entries at Google Books, multiple articles on Los Angeles Times: [1],[2]). Clearly passes WP:NBOOK#1 and WP:GNG. AfD is not cleanup. Cavarrone (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to be clear, I was aware of the earlier AfD and I am not objecting to notability but to content. For clarity, I came across the article while patrolling and it did not impress on content right off the bat. This article has been nothing but a plot summary stub (which is objectionable on WP for completely different reasons than lack of notability) for a month. Now, I'm not going to fight to get rid of the thing, if people want to keep it they want to keep it; I'm just laying good odds that this stub is still going to be a plot summary five years from now... -- BenTels (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NOEFFORT and you will find the answer. WP:PLOT is not a valid reason to delete something, but rather to improve it. You yourself can fix these lacks through regular editing, above there are all the sources you need to improve and expand this stub, and your updates will be much appreciated. But, for sure, deletion discussions are not for this sort of things.Cavarrone (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If *I* start editing that article, that will just make things worse, not better -- I don't have any expertise (and no, just having access to sources is no substitute). Beyond that, again, I'm not going to fight to get rid of the thing. However, WP:NOEFFORT is admirable but often unrealistic... so I *am* still taking bets. :-) . -- BenTels (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't imagine that your own inability to improve the article equates to the inability of anyone to do so. You are not the only editor in town. Whether such improvement takes place in the next five minutes, five years, five millennia or ever is immaterial, as this is a valid, sourced article as it stands. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PLOT. Although articles should not be "summary-only descriptions of works", the remedy to such a violation of WP:NOT is that "such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage." I have no comment on notability as nobody seems to be challenging this subject on notability grounds. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2012 (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.