Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Generation (poem) (2nd nomination)
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 23:21, 27 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
- 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 delete. Previous AfD was noconsensus; by now, consensus seems clear DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lost Generation (poem) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was originally nominated for deletion back in May and the discussion was closed as "no consensus". The "keep" votes mainly referred to the viral nature of the poem, but did not point to any reliable sources that verify this. The one article that was supplied is not about the poem/video, but only mentions it at the end as the basis for a recruitment video. I found another article with a similar mention, but again, it's not about the poem/video. A Google search about it brings up a lot of blogs and forum posts but nothing picked up by reliable sources about the poem itself. ... discospinster talk 19:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So what is the rationale for deletion? I'm not hearing you state the reasons for deletion, here. –fudoreaper (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not notable. ... discospinster talk 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not covered by reliable third party sources. Does not meet notability requirements. Beach drifter (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 6 November 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, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (reluctant) Delete Last time the article was kept as no consensus based on a very passing mention in an RS, lots of YouTubeity, and source vaporware. What's changed? Millions of people may like it, but if we can't write about it except with lots of (extremely) unreliable sources and an ORfest, the article belongs somewhere else with lower standards. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable refs found. Search is tricky as there are many blogs, links to videos, and copies of the poem itself all over. Tried various searches to no effect, eg ("poetry review" "Lost Generation" "Jonathan Reed" -video) returns 1 issue of Spellbound, and nothing in there either. Fails Notability, Verifiability. This is odd as the poem has clearly attracted much cheeping and twittering. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable poem. Sure, it's popular, but popularity doesn't always equal notability. --Madison-chan (talk) 00:29, 15 November 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.