Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana

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 ambiguous.

I count 9 "delete" votes (one anonymous user discounted), 4 "keep" votes (one probable troll discounted), 1 "transwiki" and 2 "redirect". The transwiki vote also has to be discounted because it would create copyright problems. Despite it's week on VfD and a number of edits to the article, it has even less content than when it started and yet all the edits make sense. I can't find a better version to revert to. 9 to 6 is a clear majority to delete but does not reach the level of concensus necessary. The decision defaults to "keep" for now.

Because of the negligible content, I am going to exercise my authority as an ordinary editor to turn the article into a redirect. Rossami (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana[edit]

Article currently doesn't establish notability. Joe D (t) 00:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, someone link Eli Siegel. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Google doesn't seem to say this poem is notable (165 hits). Delete, or at least redirect to Eli Siegel. --Idont Havaname 02:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, this poem is already in the Eli Siegel article. Megan1967 04:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, poem by notable poet. Kappa 04:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or put in WikiBooks if they want it. R adiant _* 08:55, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Yoda and... what, it isn't something he said? Oh, ok then, delete. Even notable poets don't need an entry for every poem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
keep this please allow it to grow Yuckfoo 17:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup--this poem won the National Poetry Prize and was praised by William Carlos Williams. Meelar (talk) 17:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Delete barring a re-write. Six lines of a poem does not an encyclopedia article make. --Carnildo 19:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Carnildo. No evidence is presented in the article for the notability of these few little scratches of verse. --Stan. 4.246.120.153 20:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki...to Wikibooks or Wikisource? I'm not entirely sure where this would go, but though I think it's notable, it's not encyclopedic.--MikeJ9919 20:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't transwiki poems which are copyrighted. Don't transwiki the first six lines of any work. Rick K 21:17, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Eli Siegel. Not enough content to justify a separate page, even as a stub, but assuming he's a notable poet, this seems to be a notable poem. Andrewa 20:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody does an analysis of the poem. Just putting six lines in an article does not make it an eneyclopedia article. Rick K 21:17, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Eli Siegel. Same reason as Andrewa --metta, The Sunborn 18:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mcfly85 22:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.--Prem 03:20, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
KEEP - i am sick of people who don't know about a topic saying something is NOT NOTABLE. this poem is VERY NOTABLE in U.S. poetry. i am also sick of articles getting nominated for VfD and then left unedited. Reminder to all of you: it is okay to copyedit and wikify items that have been nominated for VfD. By the way, if anyone has any extra time, can someone copy edit Eli Siegel? Kingturtle 18:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.