Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Becky Sharp (character)


 * 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The result was speedy/SNOW keep Due to 10x WP:HEY expxansion - to 3000+ words - by all the issues brought up are no longer applicable and let's dispense of the bureaucracy. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Becky Sharp (character)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does this subject require an article of its own? I would argue no, it doesn't. Arguments: the section on Becky over at Vanity Fair is richer than this supposed "main" article, this article is short and ill maintained, with an eleven(!) year old unfixed sourcing template. Proposal: simply delete this, rescuing the few bits not already at Vanity_Fair_(novel). Thx CapnZapp (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, the nom self-identifies as not being a fan of mid-Victorian literature huh? That's OK, neither do I :)  But I must advise that, whatever the state of the article (not, in itself, an argument for deletion of course), this is one of the most well-known books of its era—and Sharp in the protagonist. And, while fame =/= notability, this means that both the book generally and the character specifically have consistently been the subject of high-quality scholarship throughout the 20th-century, to this day, in a variety of disciplines.For example.Crossings in Text and Textile, eds K. Joslin & D. Wardrop, Aesthetes and Decadents of the 1890s: An Anthology of British Poetry and Prose, K. Beckson, Comedy and Culture: England 1820-1900, R. B. Henkle, Virginal Sexuality and Textuality in Victorian Literature, ed. L. Davis, Andrew Davies, by S. Cardwell, Character Sketches of Romance, Fiction and the Drama, E. C. Brewer, Anthony Trollope: The Critical Heritage, ed. D. Smalley, Corporate Character: Representing Imperial Power in British India, 1786-1901, E. Kent, Laughter and Despair: Readings in Ten Novels of the Victorian Era, U. C. Knoepflmacher, The Victorian Novel, ed. H. Bloom, Victorian Literature and Culture, M. Moran, The Victorian Governess, K. Hughes, Precocious Children and Childish Adults: Age Inversion in Victorian Literature, C. Nelson, Rule of Darkness: British Literature and Imperialism, 1830-1914, P. Brantlinger, Aspects of the Novel, E. M. Forster, Transparent Minds: Narrative Modes for Presenting Consciousness in Fiction, D. Cohn, His and Hers: Essays in Restoration and Eighteenth-century Literature, A. Messenger, Little Red Readings: Historical Materialist Perspectives on Children’s Literature, ed. A. E. Hubler, Women & Cross Dressing 1800-19 ed. H. Bauer, Henry James and the Culture of Consumption, M. El-Rayess, The Cambridge Companion to the Literature of London, ed. L. Manley, The Art of Writing, F. M. Salter, The Garden Squares of Boston, P. S. Goodman, The Novel, M. Schmidt, A Gendered Collision: Sentimentalism and Modernism in Dorothy Parker's Poetry and Fiction, R. S. Pettit, The Cambridge Companion to Edith Wharton, ed. M. Bell, The Femme Fatale in Victorian Literature: The Danger and the Sexual Threat, J. Hedgecock, What's Hecuba to Him?: Fictional Events and Actual Emotions, E. M. Dadlez, Famous Last Words: Changes in Gender and Narrative Closure, ed. A. Booth and The Cambridge Paperback Guide to Literature in English, I. Ousby.I suppose, If I have an actual point, it's that Becky Sharp should be, not so much deleted, but easilly a good article—and probably a featured one! Cheers,  ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:BEFORE and WP:MAD. Andrew D. (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It's quite clear that there is sufficient in-depth coverage of the character in so many reliable sources (not to mention the prominent coverage from the recent Vanity Fair (2018 TV series)) that the article easily meets GNG. As we all agree that the need to improve an article is not grounds for deletion, that only leaves the question of whether the character should have a stand-alone article or be covered solely within the main Vanity Fair article. I note that it is common practice to create stand-alone articles for principal characters of literary works, so many precedents exist for this article. At 32K of readable prose, the Vanity Fair article is at the maximum size before considering moving to summary style, and the first topic to split out would undoubtedly be Becky Sharp. There's little point in redirecting this article only to re-create it at a future date. --RexxS (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do wish there were more sources in the article (if I knew more about the topic I'd add some) but notability isn't really in question here, per the sources above and this result. Vanamonde (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Vanity Fair. The argument is not about WP:notability, but about whether there is any reason to have the separate article. I see none at present. The article has no sources other than the text of the book, so is entirely WP:original research making WP:TNT appropriate to its current state. If the section expands to the point where a separate article is appropriate, one can then be created. -- Qwfp (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * now has other sources:), Keep, plenty of sources out there to improve the article, as listed above (thanks ), so meets WP:GNG, also WP:ARTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per SerialNumber54129 and Andrew D. I would have to agree that the nomination seems a failure of both WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:BEFORE. Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources in article and above. The nomination is based on opinions unrelated to WP:N. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2018 (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.