Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When We Dead Awaken: Writing as Re-Vision

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. Consensus is to keep this although it needs work to turn it into a decent article.Michig (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When We Dead Awaken: Writing as Re-Vision

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

non notable essay. No refs. google shows lots of copies of the essay, but no discussion/criticism. I suspect, but have no proof, that the creator is the author of the essay, based on the creator's username, (FemiAmeriPoet), and the description of the author in the article (American feminist, poet, teacher, and writer) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From looking at the locations of some of the copies of the essay, it looks like this might be something taught in various colleges. Unfortunately I'm so far not finding anything as far as lesson plans go and I know that being hosted on a college website does not always guarantee that the essay will be specifically taught in a class. Everything that is coming up is just copies of the essay on various websites. The author looks to be notable but I'm not sure that this essay is notable outside of her or that Rich counts as someone so notable that all of her works would be automatically notable as well.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Additional. I'm finding a few sources, but I'm not sure if they are enough to keep the article. It seems to have been briefly discussed in the Encyclopedia of Feminist Literature as well as The Routledge Companion to Feminism and Postfeminism and I'm finding some lesson plans that have her as something they're studying [1] [2] [3] [4]. They were a bear to find and I can't post all of them since some of them are google documents of class syllabi, but I did find that this is being taught in some college courses. Whether or not they're enough to keep it, I'm not certain.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

honest question - does use in college courses constitute notability? Would that not depend a lot on who is teaching the course, and if they are associated with the author etc? (Certainly they would have to be independent). I guess my point is my gut says - "works that are used in college courses are likely to be notable, but such use does not prove so). Gaijin42 (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly? I'm actually not so sure on that and I agree that being taught in a class doesn't always equate with notability. However I actually feel about this qualification under WP:NBOOK, if a book or written subject is taught in multiple schools of any grade level it's considered to be notable. I'm not sure what constitutes "multiple" since the guideline never actually states quantities. I wish that's something that was clarified.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

More than one constitutes multiple. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that if this is kept, it'll pretty much have to be completely rewritten to get rid of all of the OR in the article and make it more neutral and encyclopedic. The biggest flaw of this is that it appears that the original contributor uploaded a research paper they'd written. I'll try to do some work with it sometime during this week before the AfD ends.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

On reflection, Keep. While I haven't found much in the way of sustained discussion (with this article being the exception), I have found a number of academic sources that describe the work as important or notable ([5], [6], [7], etc. etc.) and it's also cited often as a vehicle for understanding other texts, both by Rich and by others. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 14:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. Tokyogirl is right, this will need serious editing for NPOV, very likely because it's self-authored. However there does seem to be an article in there somewhere, and well done her and Roscolese for finding some sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Books and Scholar searches disclose large numbers of sources discussing this publication and treating it as important. Would appear to meet the notability guideline for a literary work. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 20 December 2011 (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.