Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intruder in the Dust
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 18:27, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Intruder in the Dust[edit]
Book review. Very POV. If the book is considered notable, I still think the current article should be deleted to make place for a better one. Radiant! 13:59, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and rewrite from scratch. Amazon says William Faulkner wrote it, which I'd say makes notability. --InShaneee 21:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This is not the appropriate outlet for articles that need cleanup. Please see Wikipedia:Cleanup, Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. ElBenevolente 01:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I do not dispute the worthiness of the subject, but I believe the current article should be deleted because in this case it would be better to start a new article from scratch than to modify the existing article. Radiant! 09:03, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Radiant!. And I disagree with those who say VfD should not be cleanup. In extreme examples, like this one, where the submission is simply garbage, it is perfectly reasonable to nominate it for VfD and hope that someone will bother to turn it into a decent stub. Cleanup should be for articles that need improvement, not for garbage that is not an article at all. I think "delete and list as a requested article" is a disposition that we ought to use more often. The advantage is that a requested article does not exist until someone is actually ready to write it, whereas articles marked for cleanup remain visible. This is good for articles that are better than nothing or that contain salvageable material, but is bad for articles that are worse than nothing and contain nothing salvageable. I'm glad that the issue is moot for this particular article. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I do not dispute the worthiness of the subject, but I believe the current article should be deleted because in this case it would be better to start a new article from scratch than to modify the existing article. Radiant! 09:03, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I have changed this article into a literary stub referencing the Faulkner book and the MGM film based on it. It is clearly a notable book which should be expanded in due course. I would have done more but will have other commitments over the next few days. Capitalistroadster 10:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as it has now been rewritten. Average Earthman 10:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep in present form. This book is definitely notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.