Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerty MacDowell

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. No real reason given for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerty MacDowell[edit]

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

I genuinely do not know whether this sort of article belongs on Wikipedia. Longwayround (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure how your own ignorance equates to an article being deleted. Maybe you could cite a policy this doesn't meet? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe WP:BKD: "[W]hile a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not. Exceptions do, of course, exist—especially in the case of very famous books." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, if this was an attempt to nominate an article about an obscure character from an unnoticed novel, the shot has gone a bit wide. I'm sure more has been written about Hamlet (I mean the character, not the play) but the character of Gerty MacDowell has been the subject of masses and masses of literary (and legal![1]) analysis. It would have been good to have clicked some of the "find sources" so conveniently provided above. The dreadful shame is that this article doesn't give a clue about any of this. Mmm. Thincat (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Malik, for assuming good faith in my proposed deletion. There appear to be pages for a lot of characters from the book. Would I be right in thinking that each is deserving of an article? Longwayround (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, read WP:BEFORE. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For something as canonical, and as heavily studied, as Ulysses, it's likely that (nearly) every character could have an article. However, many of the articles in Category:Ulysses (novel) characters seem to be as brief this one. As an editorial decision, we could decide to merge and redirect the very stubby articles to List of Ulysses characters (which is currently just a naked list of names, without context or discussion), until there's too much content about a particular character to fit in the list. Either way, this wouldn't be deleted at AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Ulysses characters. It's an important enough novel that there is probably something we can write on every character, however this kind of rather brief summary would be better incorporated into a list of minor characters. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Topic is notable, just the article needs work. 1292simon (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2014 (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.