Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furies: Erinyes.

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 Userfy to User:FUSTER1965/Furies: Erinyes. Note to the creator: Please do familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as pointed out. Otherwise the next time you create such an article, it will most likely be deleted. SoWhy 17:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Furies: Erinyes.

Furies: Erinyes. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I suggest first that this page should be merged into Erinyes. Failing that, it should be deleted. I prodded it a while back; in response, the editor stated on the talk page: " Furies: Erinyes, is a project that studies the details of Virgil's use of the Furies, as characters, in his available writings, with a comparison to the use of the Furies, as characters, by his contemporaries, fore-runners and other Classical and later authors." I waited to see if the editor would update the page to make this clearer but it is still more like a draft for a dissertation than an encyclopaedic entry. — Iadmc♫^talk  12:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Iadmc♫^talk  12:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. — Iadmc♫^talk  19:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I am the author. I've been busy and unable to get back to edit the User page Furies: Erinyes. I do intend to finish the article and when finished I will be please for it to remain as a single page or for it to be merged, in some way, with another page. The details that I'm looking for are time consuming to find. I will be happy to finish it, given a bit of time, before any final decisions are made. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FUSTER1965 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi FUSTER1965, the article you created is not a "user page", but rather is in the encyclopedia's "mainspace" (i.e part of the encyclopedia proper, see WP:MAINSPACE). To see how to create a user page, you should read: Wikipedia:User pages. Paul August ☎ 15:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Move: I believe that FUSTER1965 intended this to be a user page, but does not understand how to create one. So I suggest that this be moved to User:FUSTER1965/Furies: Erinyes. Paul August ☎ 15:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with moving, but I want to make sure that FUSTER1965 is aware that Wikipedia does not accept original research on Wikipedia. This means that unless this content has already been explicitly stated elsewhere by a reliable source, it shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. And by explicit I mean that the source has to state "Homer's description of the Cyclops' behaviour, provides an element of confirmation that Hesiod writes about the Furies with the Cyclops - Æschylus (see below) can be deemed to have a similar opinion - in mind", at least in its own words. Anything that you came up with would be considered original research.The quality of your research isn't really something that would be in question - it's just that Wikipedia can only contain research that has been discussed by vetted outlets/people. I also have to share in Iadmc's concerns that this is more of a dissertation than Wikipedia content, especially given its tone (ie, that it's written like a research paper). I just want to caution you that even if this is moved to your draftspace that it would still have to comply with Wikipedia conventions regardless of where you post it. I've written an essay about this here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

• Well, as Erinyes is on exactly the same subject, is better written, better cited, and illustrated, this is a new content fork and as such should be deleted. However, if respected editors believe that the article's creator can make use of the material to make useful additions to Erinyes then userfying could be an appropriate choice. The current text is nearly all quotations, labelled "Notes, Line:", with an initial paragraph which does not seem to add anything to the existing article, and there is off-topic essay-like comparison with the Fates. So personally I'd just delete, but I'm happy to go along with what people feel would be best. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• I was concerned that it might not have any new info. I'll leave it up to you guys - I haven't done a really indepth comparison of the two articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Further comment from nom—I'd support userfying and letting the editor work on it to see if it could eventually be used on Wikipedia in some way. However, I suggest the editor familiarize themself with the policies, guidelines and essays linked on their own talk page and Tokyogirl79's excellent essay on encyclopaedic writing vs academic writing: here — Iadmc♫^talk  18:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

In that case, let's Userfy, as I didn't vote earlier. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Not useful as an article. I'd be ok with userfying, but the author does not seem to understand how Wikipedia works and that we don't do OR.  Sandstein  08:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

My feelings entirely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Userfy. I haven't checked this article against Erinyes, but it's possible that some of the information here (provided it isn't WP:OR) could be usefully added to that and/or elsewhere. IMO Furies: Erinyes. should not be a standalone article, and needs to go - it's a WP:FORK. Narky Blert (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll also remark that this article is heavily overlinked. Narky Blert (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

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.