Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taming of the Shrew Act 3

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taming of the Shrew Act 3

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

Although a good article on a single act from Taming of the Shrew might conceivably be written, this is not that article, and it appears to have little to no salvagable content. It gives a detailed summary of the Act and a great deal of original research concerning the author's interpretation of the play, followed by a large number of mostly irrelevant links (e.g. to general information about Shakespeare. Converted from G11 because it's obviously doesn't "serve only to promote an entity, person or product". Could not find evidence that it's a copyvio. May be an essay affiliated with some kind of class. Note: A similar article on another act has been PRODed at The Taming of the Shrew: Act I. Dcoetzee 01:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question – Are there other articles like this that are just about one act of a play that already has an article? Is this correct? –TC N7 JM 01:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a new article by another new user that is very similar: Midsummer Night's Dream: Act I. Both of these articles have the same incoherent structure (or lack thereof). I also found a very similar sandbox article on es.wiki but it looks like it was just deleted. I also found this: User:Alpha Group 1 and this: User:Alpha Group 1/sandbox. These articles seem as if they were copy pasted from other sources. - MrX 03:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched for several phrases and Google turns up nothing. If it's copyvio it's from offline or deep web sources. I suspect what's going on is all these articles are written by young students as part of a misguided class assignment. Dcoetzee 04:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. The fact that somebody wrote a gigantic block of uncited text doesn't automatically mean copyvio. It might just mean the user isn't used to Wikipedia's standards yet, as also evident by doing other stuff like capitalizing full headers when they're not supposed to. I mean, the info isn't unsourced and it can probably be said that this isn't plagiarism, but I just don't think this article, per the notability guidline, needs to exist. How is one act of a play notable enough for an article? –TC N7 JM 08:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We've already got The Taming of the Shrew. If there's content of value from this article that could go there, that's fine, but I see no benefit in articles about individual acts from plays. SchreiberBike (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:OR and WP:NOT#OR. The article would need to be completely rewritten to have any encyclopedic value. I also have a strong suspicion that most or all of the article was copied-pasted from other sources. It's also worth mentioning that other new editors have created very similar articles in the past couple of days. - Mr X 04:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per my above comments and question. This doesn't need to exist, and we should try to get rid of all of the other recent one-act articles if we can. –TC N7 JM 04:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per WP: CSD A10. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 04:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and WP: CSD A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic - suspect this is some sort of college work. Arjayay (talk) 18:47, 4 March 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.