Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Bertram

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 arguments for deletion aside from nominator JForget 22:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Bertram[edit]

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

"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2009)" has been in place since Sept 2009 RedBlue82 ^talk 22:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only other viable option would be to merge it into the Mansfield Park article but it's too long for that. Note that an article lacking sources is not reason for deletion, if there are reliable sources that exist: "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." First Light (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a great article - it is totally in-universe and without sourcing. But the same seems to be true of a dozen other articles about the other major characters from the same novel. If that's the norm, there is no reason to single this one out for deletion. And don't quote WP:OTHERSTUFF to me. In this case it seems that this has become the accepted, standard way to handle the characters from this novel, as well as from Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, etc. Random deletion of one such article would serve no purpose and in fact would be counterproductive. Only if there a consensus to eliminate all separate character descriptions would that be appropriate, and it seems clear that the consensus is rather to do it the way it has been done. --MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2010 (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.