Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bedelia Du Maurier


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. signed,Rosguill talk 18:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Bedelia Du Maurier

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Sources in the article are either primary or do not prove the character's notability (awards for the actress does not equal to notability for the person the actress played), a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to Hannibal (TV series) (perhaps not the best redirect target, but I can only think of that). Spinixster  (chat!)  02:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy,  and Television.  Spinixster   (chat!)  02:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Here's a few sources from ProQuest, non-exhaustive search. There seem to be some decent sources in the article as well. (See also Articles for deletion/Jack Crawford (character) for my concerns about this set of 8 nominations in 7 minutes) &mdash;siro&chi;o 07:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The second source only briefly mentions the character, as with the third source. The first one has a brief analysis of the character in the final scene of season 3. I think more sources would be needed. Spinixster   (chat!)  07:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: The fact that I'm the original creator of this article however many years ago at this stage bears no merit (I'm sure that those kinds of ill-minded people who would think that for even a second are on here). These blatant series of nominations in SUCH SHORT PERIOD with no real meaty reason is not only highly suspect, it's at its least highly insulting, at worst some sort of ill-gotten agenda. Cartoon Boy talk 21:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The age of the article does not equal to notability (WP:ARTICLEAGE). I do take your word for the series of nominations, that is my mistake, but you are wrong with "no real meaty reason". The reason is notability, and that's why I sent it to AfD in the first place. If you can prove the character is notable with sources, please do so. Spinixster   (chat!)  07:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge. The current reception is about the actress, not the character. I am AGFing the source critique above to conclude this fails WP:SIGCOV. Ping me if more sources are found. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 23:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus I mentioned above it was not an exhaustive search, please take my comments as good faith here, as well. For your edification, here's a few more sources . &mdash;siro&chi;o 00:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Siroxo Thanks, let me review them... First source I get only snippet views, not seeing SIGCOV analysis there. Second, ditto although one or two snippets suggest there may be something good there. Third source is not in English so I am not qualified to comment on it (machine translation of such snippets is cumbersome). For now I'll stick with my vote, although if someone writes up an analysis or such based on sources found (which at minimum would be good for merging), ping me and I'll review things again (ditto for more sources, but please, ensure they can be read, or better, quote relevant parts here - TIA). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, @Piotrus I think the spirit of WP:NEXIST is important here. We can't really expect to keep up with the pace of AfDs to rewrite articles. Keep in mind, the nominator opened 8 AfDs, and they're not the only ones going (remember the recent work that went into Yoyodyne). I really don't have time within the scope of AfD to add the reception/analysis you're asking for, despite my 100% confidence that this subject meets GNG (as do all 8 of these related subjects). &mdash;siro&chi;o 01:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Siroxo Hence my view of redirect/merge (soft deletion preserving history). Such articles that do not meet our criteria right now but show potential can be easily restored later. Now, to be clear, if I saw sufficient source I'd say keep and tag with sources exist but right now I dont see them (due to verification difficulties). Other that that I think this is right now the case of WP:SEXIST more than WP:NEXIST, since I was not able to verify that good sources exist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm confident the sources I've presented are sufficient for an article, and I hope you can assume good faith on that. From what I can tell, even the general preview and snippet views demonstrates that in some of these (for example the first source has an entire chapter/essay dedicated to this character), though with GBooks we may be seeing different views. Note, however, that there are a various ways to see a bit more. For example, you can do a fresh search for the character name in google books (sometimes you need to be logged out or an a new browser, etc), scroll to the appropriate book, click the result, and be presented with a fuller view.
 * I hope you'll note from past discussions that when I am doubtful of this fact, I often suggest a merge or redirect. In such cases I always look for a solid bit of SIGCOV involving secondary synthesis/analysis beyond the primary text and if I don't find them I don't recommend keeping.
 * However, in these cases when the sources are clear, redirecting makes it a lot harder to develop the article over a period of time, as undoing the redirect with only a small addition is often treated as controversial. Another editor might even come along and start the article fresh without realizing sources have been found, and spend time digging up sources when we've already done that.
 * While I hope you can trust my evaluation a bit more in the future, in the meantime here's some examples from above:
 * From Kara French's essay in Becoming:
 * From Hannibal for Dinner
 * Fowler
 * Gledhill
 * &mdash;siro&chi;o 03:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep. Certainly the bestowal of awards for the performance of the character is sufficient evidence of a reception consistent with the notability of the character. BD2412  T 04:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep notable character. Lightburst (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep notable character. Lightburst (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2023 (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.