Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Mary (person)

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. John254 01:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Mary (person)[edit]

Duplicates (poorly) Mary I of England. I don't see anything worth even merging into that article. BPMullins | Talk 04:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep with the proviso that it could be cleaned up, some content removed, etc. -- I am curious, did you even read the article? Much of the information has nothing to do with Mary I of England and does need a Wikipedia article, if not at that name, somewhere else. You can't just delete the rest of that information. DreamGuy 04:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't (yet) meet WP:SK, but can be speedy kept if the nominator withdraws and all opinions are for keep.--Chaser - T 04:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't even realize there was an official speedy keep designation these days... but I did hope that based upon my post that the nominating editor would admit to an error and withdraw his nomination. DreamGuy 06:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - FWIW, this nomination probably can be closed now as moot in any case. The nominated page is now a redirect, which are dealt with elsewhere if they are controversial, and most of the original page now stands at Bloody Mary (folklore). I think the redirect ought to be to Bloody Mary (disambiguation), myself. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think moving an article during a vote alone ends a deletion vote, otherwise things would fall apart. There is no [[Bloody Mary (disambiguation)], just Bloody Mary, which serves as a disambiguation page. I would think any article that links to Bloody Mary (person) would be to the ghost, but it certainly can be checked out and all the links pointed to the correct location. DreamGuy 20:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Correct. A page move changes the title but doesn't cause closure of a current deletion discussion. Folks at the disambig wikiproject might be willing to help with those links.--Chaser - T 17:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The epithet "Bloody Mary" starts with Mary I of England, since the sobriquet was first applied to her. But the bulk of the article does not have anything to do with the queen; the chief focus of the rest of the article is on Bloody Mary, the figure of folklore that inspired the Candyman movies and many similar supernatural dares. The article also briefly discusses the Bloody Mary cocktail, and various other fictional characters that have been called Bloody Mary, including the one in South Pacific. I may have originated this article, and have had a hand in editing it. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite to focus only on the supernatural Bloody Mary, merge any other content back to the relevant articles (on the Queen, the musical, the cocktail etc.) and move to Bloody Mary (ghost) or similar. This article is trying too hard to be an in-detail version of the already existant disambiguation page and needs to focus on just one Mary. Confusing Manifestation 04:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep An article entirely independent of Mary I of England, no grounds for deletion. The article is instead about the folkloric character, definitely meets the criteria for a Wikipedia page, although I would recommend a name change to Bloody Mary (folklore) in order to avoid similar confusions. Calgary 04:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spin off the Bloody Mary (folklore) and Bloody Mary (South Pacific character) into separate articles, add them to the disambiguation page at Bloody Mary, and delete the rest of the article. The folklore subject seems to be the sole subject of numerous academic articles in folklore studies.[1]. The South Pacific character is if I remember correctly one of the major characters in the book (I don't know about the movie or musical) and there also seem to be a number of academic articles about her (given the age of the book, popular articles about the character probably don't exist online). We don't need the rest of the cultural trivia, though, since none of the rest of it appears to pass WP:FICT, and without these two notable characters the rest of the article is either duplication of Mary I of England or non-notable trivia. --Charlene 04:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a page for the South Pacific character under Bloody Mary (South Pacific) Calgary 05:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even look there. Thanks. --Charlene 05:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- "Delete and merge" and variations such as this aren't possible under the terms of our site license, the GFDL.--Chaser - T 04:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Important Note I've edited the article to remove any reference to Queen Mary I or other people named Bloody Mary. The article now exclusively discusses the folkloric character, with a link to the disambiguation page. Calgary 04:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did you move the page to Bloody Mary (folklore)? I'll go to the university library tomorrow and see if they have the journals in which the character from South Pacific is mentioned. I have a feeling she's notable as well as a cultural archetype, since in the first five pages there were three journal articles about her - unusual for a 20th century fictional character. --Charlene 04:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Bloody Mary (folklore). I recommend deletion of Bloody Mary (person) as an unneeded/misleading redirect, unless that makes GFDL compliance impossible. --Dhartung | Talk 05:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There has recently been a lot of activity at this page for whatever reason, so a lot has changed. But the topic is certainly notable and encyclopedic, even if it needs work. It might do to revert to the article's previous state, but it definately should be kept.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a perfectly acceptable fork given that Mary I of England is already very long and the distinction between the two articles is quite clear. MartinDK 08:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Bloody Mary (folklore). Wouldn't it be better to change the redirect at Bloody Mary (person) so that it points to Mary I of England? Deor 15:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect most of the incoming links to it would be for the ghost and not the queen, as I think those would go to the queen page directly. But, as I said above, it'd just be better to find the links that go to it and change them to go to the more appropriate intended article in each case. I'd think just for now (person) itself should redirect to (folklore) for the sake of incoming search engine results. DreamGuy 20:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, as written now its a wonderful article about the folklore of Bloody Mary. Callelinea 16:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep Very widespread folklore. I remember this as a kid, and being too scared to say her name in the mirror. :) --sumnjim ^{talk with me changes} 16:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe add section about her grave(s)·
Strong keep. The legend is quite distinct from the queen. --72.84.34.222 07:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this is good folklore history. TMC1221 22:47, 2 July 2007 (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.