Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political messages of Dr. Seuss

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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political messages of Dr. Seuss

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

Rational at WP:HD by Bobnorwal ". I think it's very out of place and doesn't serve much of a purpose. It was written as part of a college assignment. It definitely needs to be dealt with." --Mdann52talk to me! 08:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this doesn't belong as a stand-alone article. It's kind of the author to share, but most of the material is already in Wikipedia. Dr. Seuss's main article goes into some depth on his views. The individual articles on the books already offer interpretations, particularly for the more political books like The Butter Battle Book, so there's little if any merging required. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment indicates that some merging would be required. Deletion would obviously disrupt this. Please explain how your !vote is consistent with our editing policy. Warden (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I suggest is to paste the text of this article into his main article as a section. Then combine that section with the existing political views section of that article. Then no information will be lost. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Little if any merging required" does not mean that merging is required. It means that if any merging is needed, it will be minimal. This is because most content is duplicated. Have you found anything in the article that is not elsewhere on Wikipedia? --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal merging is still merging and then our attribution policy requires us to keep the edit history but deletion would destroy this. See WP:MAD. Warden (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable - see The Political Dr Seuss, for example. And the page contains much good educational material. Let us heed the word of The Lorax, "UNLESS"... Warden (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic is notable but not needed. Seuss's progressive views are a big part of who he was and why he wrote his books. This information is already found in his own article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is rather a good article and unusually well referenced for this sort of thing. I can't see the off-line references but the article's provenance[1] inspires confidence. There is more information here than could reasonably be included at Dr. Seuss. The suggestion at WP:Help Desk seems primarily to be to split the commentary on the various books into the several articles but unfortunately this aspect was not mentioned in the nomination here. Splitting up might work but would end up preventing deletion on grounds of losing attribution (though a redirect to Dr. Seuss would suffice). However, the topic as a whole very clearly meets the notability guidelines. This book extensively discusses Geisel's political satire and there is plenty more overall discussion of the topic.[2][3][4][5]. Thincat (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject to possible subsequent merge(s). I don't think anyone disagrees that the topic is significant to Seuss, and that sources exist that discuss the topic in detail. I don't see any reason to remove the substantial editing history of this article. Whether to merge it, and where, can be worked out through normal editorial processes. (My own initial view is that the material that's currently in this article could probably be accommodated in the main article, but more is out there that could expand it into something bigger. I also note that we already have a short article about the book Dr. Seuss Goes to War, which would profit from some expansion to establish its notability.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what a good, well-written article to find here. It is clearly notable. As for merging, there is a good, brief section correctly written in summary style, with a 'main' link to this article as there should be, for a more detailed treatment, which is provided. Merging would be completely wrong in this context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's a very nicely written, well-researched school paper, but the fact remains that it is exactly that: a research paper. Mangoe (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that is a well written article and contains a number of citations. I believe it could be improved and has already been improved from when this was proposed. XFEM Skier (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG through plenty of citations, big enough that it can't be merged anywhere per WP:SIZE without losing a lot of content. Detailed does not equal cruft. Jclemens (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People counting citations are missing the point. It's still an essay, not a proper article. Mangoe (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making the article less essaylike is a matter for normal editing. The subject is clearly demonstrated to be notable, and the fact that it could be better written is not cause for deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles are expected to be in the format of a prose essay. What WP:NOTESSAY discourages are "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinion of experts)." The article in question does not seem to state or convey the personal feelings of its author(s) and so it's fine. Warden (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your eagerness to quote a policy linkage that happens to share a name, you have missed the point. This is not an encyclopedia article; it's a term paper, well-referenced perhaps, but not the sort of text when should be constructing. Of course the main article needs to mention the inclusion of political messages, and then each of the articles on the books needs to talk about that book's political message if it has one. But constructing an article which collects the latter together simply as a string of subsections is redundant. I could see some point to an article on the politics of Dr. Seuss, assuming it can dodge WP:OR. But an article which simply strings together cut-down parts of the other articles is simply a maintenance sink. It's always going to be worse than reading the articles on the books, or a section on Geisel's politics in his article. Mangoe (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a topic covered in the scholarly literature (as the footnotes showing attest). Passes GNG as a subject dealt with substantially in multiple independently-published sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warden and Carrite. If whole shelves of books are published about a topic, then it's notable. Even term papers have become articles. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2013 (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.