Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romanticism and Revolution

Romanticism and Revolution

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

Per original prod and prod2, this is an essay, not an encyclopedic article. Intrinsically WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 16:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article contains numerous good sources which testify to the notability of the topic such as Romanticism, Revolution, and Language; Romance and Revolution: Shelley and the Politics of a Genre; The French Revolution and the English Poets; Anger, Revolution, and Romanticism. As there is abundant material of this sort, it seems a straightforward matter to summarise it in an encyclopedic way. Any deficiencies in the current draft may be remedied by ordinary editing in accordance with our policy and deletion would obviously be unhelpful in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete personal essay by someone who couldn't even spell Tintern Abbey correctly with a title so broad, it could never possibly hope to become an encyclopedia article (decent title though, i wonder if there's a notable book of this name. Worth nicking if not.)Bali ultimate (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I do not disagree with Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) on the fact that this article is actually well sourced and has a lot of potential content, the fact remains, in my opinion, that it will never be able to be anything other than an essay. I don't believe that cleanup is an option here, because in order to write about the potential influence of one thing on another, you have to write an essay. There is no way to write this article and have it be an encyclopedic work. While some of the content on this page may belong on the Romanticism article, I don't believe that an article on this topic alone should exist. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 00:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title is too vague to allow this essay to be rewritten as a suitable encyclopaedia article, or even replaced by a stub. An article on The French Revolution in literature or The French Revolution in English Romantic poetry would be another matter, but the content here isn't going to help in writing one. EALacey (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Col. Warden. It is a well-referenced and well-written article, and any problems can be addressed with editing. Warrah (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warrah (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- an essay which is unlikely to ever become a legitimate encyclopedia article. Reyk _YO! 01:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author should write a longer article and try to get it published in print, for money! WP is for definite (and sometimes boring) facts about clearly defined topics.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject of numerous books already cited so, notable and sourced. What remains is regular editing which is not a reason to delete. -- Banjeboi 15:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ottava Rima, an administrator on Wikiversity, has expressed an interest in importing this article for use on that project, should this be closed as delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. Dlabtot (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It can never be anything but a personal essay with that title. In itself, being well sourced is not a reason to keep.--SabreBD (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]