Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microcynicon: Six Snarling Satires

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. Joyous! | Talk 06:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Microcynicon: Six Snarling Satires[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Minimal notability demonstrated by article. Completely unreferenced. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Poetry. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: This seems like an important work from a notable Elizabethan playwright, but I doubt there are enough independent sources which analyze this specific poem to justify a full article. Rather, this material could be incorporated into the article on Thomas Middleton. Patr2016 (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is now referenced. It is extensively discussed in "Middleton as Poet", from which I've added a bit to the article, and is the subject of a PhD dissertation (which I just linked as further reading), among others. I could turn up more scholarship on the poem but this is enough for GNG and now all info has a reference. -- asilvering (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding, since "merge" has been floated as a possibility, that I don't think this can be merged into Thomas Middleton without significantly rewriting that article. Not worth doing just for the sake of a merge, imo. -- asilvering (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is now within standards. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 23:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. It seems nonsensical that we wouldn't cover this somewhere. While it may have been unreferenced at the time of nomination, other editors seem to have had little difficulty finding the kind of sources one might expect the nominator to have discovered in WP:BEFORE. pburka (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems sufficiently referenced now. Merging would be fine, too if a talk page consensus favored it, but not as an AfD-enforced outcome. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks to have sufficient references for the WP:GNG. Archrogue (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, improvements provide sources which pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2022 (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.