Talk:A Good Man Is Hard to Find (short story)

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Short story task force.
	This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

An image on this page may be deleted

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:Agoodmanishardtofindcover.jpg, found on A Good Man is Hard to Find (short story), has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion

While I agree that this article has some WP:OR problems (or just a lack of citations), deletion isn't the answer, especially not for a story this well-known. I'd like to see an effort to upgrade the article rather than a unilateral decision to delete it in favor of a redirect to the collection of the same name. Mr. Darcy talk 16:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Kittybrewster ☎ 04:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those who think this article should not be a redirect should spend some time actually sourcing it instead of reverting the redirect. Corvus cornix_talk 05:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely out of line to lecture experienced users about proper Wikipedia etiquette. Deleting an entire article without discussion, as you have done, is tantamount to vandalism. This MUST be discussed, here. Mr. Darcy talk 02:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bull. And I didn't delete anything, I redirected it. WP:V is a policy, by the way. Corvus cornix_talk 04:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd categorize your actions as simply being BOLD, and I'd have probably done the same thing upon coming here if I hadn't happened to have read this story a couple years ago. Given Flannery O'Connor's notability as an author, it'd be worth having a discussion before redirecting the article wholesale. It's after 1 in the morning where I am, but I can definitely spend some time over the next few days poking around. This is one of her better known works, so I should be able to dig something up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notably and appropriately, attempting to delete-by-redirect one of the most famous short stories in American history, was one of the last things Corvus cronix ever tried on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 01:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OR tag

Can whoever tagged it for original research specify the concerns here? The critical reception/interpretation part is sourced. There are plenty fiction articles in Wikipedia that don't have their plot summary section cited to secondary sources; perhaps that's an issue, perhaps not. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. We have one user complaining about lack of citations, but s/he won't be specific about where cites are needed. It would be far easier to address that one user's concerns if those sentences were identified and tagged as well. Mr. Darcy talk 01:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you make sure to cite everything in the article, then you would presumably cover whatever the issues were. By the way, I only did a small part of what is possible for the Background section and there is much more in the reference, the Critical companion, than what I used. Silver seren^C 01:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the religious overtones section could use some citations. It's clear that in general Flannery's work had religious (Catholic) overtones, but the specific claims made here could use some citations. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to add them myself, but I've added some books to further reading that look helpful; the current wiki text may need a few changes to be directly supported by those from my brief reading of some snippets. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The whole section on "Theme of Grace" appears to be somebody's high school book review assignment. It needs to be both sourced and re-written. →mrs smartygirl← | Talk 19:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The entire entry seems to be a thinly veiled attempt at Christian evangelism. Aren't editors supposed to at least pretend to be objective? This writer cites the Bible at tedious frequency and length, given that the Bible is not an authoritative source on anything except for those who believe in the religion associated with it. I could just as well submit an entry analyzing how "A Good Man is Hard to Find" has themes and symbols in common with Dianetics, and support my assertions with quotes from L. Ron Hubbard, and it would probably be a better read than this endless "Scripture says this, Scripture says that." If we can't eliminate the pro-religious bias entirely, can we at least keep the preaching to its own easily skippable section? I'm not even an atheist, just an agnostic, but all this saintly scripture spewing makes me want to throw things.46.123.248.172 (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Love this comment! You should get the "Flannery Prize for Wikipediacs" and have your own short story. What a read that would be! 2600:1700:BAA:CD0:4954:C4A8:36E7:972 (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]