Talk:Sonnet 115

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 July 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Shakespeare Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare 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.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poetry

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry 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.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

Placing the tag on this article is utterly arbitrary and rather ridiculous. There are 154 Shakespeare sonnets. We are trying to create articles for each one, as any brief perusal of this article should have made obvious to any reader. See the template. Deleting this article would make nonsense of that project. Not one of the others - many of which have have been up for over a year - have ever had such tags stuck on them. When short articles on all the sonnets are completed then many will be expanded with commentary, as some already have been. Paul B 23:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need sources, not original research, and you need a sentence explaining just who you're referring to. Sonnet 115 doesn't tell the casual reader that this is a sonnet by William Shakespeare (though I know that), nor even what a sonnet is. Corvus cornix 23:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly; they are all formatted in the same way, as part of a series of Shakespeare's sonnets. If you have a problem with the general titling raise it on the Shakespeare's sonnets page. There is no "original research". Each article doesn't need to say what a sonnet is anymore than each article on a novel has to explain what a novel is. Paul B 23:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your sonnet articles don't need to obey WP:V and WP:NOR? Corvus cornix 01:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "my" articles. If you bother to check the others you will see they have been started by variety of editors, and the template was created by user:Adambiswanger1. As I said, there is no OR. You seem to be complaining that there are no references as yet. This is hardly unique on WP, and as I say, to delete this page would be irrational, arbitrary and make nonsense of the project as a whole. It is obvious from your comments above that you hadn't looked at the article properly, or even realised that it was part of a series that clearly states "Shakespeare's sonnets". Paul B 10:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search for references

http://books.google.com/books?output=html&q=Shakespeare+%22Sonnet+115%22+-inauthor:Shakespearelr=&sa=N

Yes, thank you. Many references can be found, but creating start articles was the priority. Many articles on undeniably notable figures have no notes. Today, for example, I read the Carl Nielsen article. The question is not whether reference are desirable, but whether the article is a legitimate candidate for 'speedy deletion'. In time we can improve this, but ask yourself the question is Wikipedia better with this article or with a red link in the Shakespeare sonnets template? Paul B 21:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. Would you consider commenting here? Addhoc 21:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]