Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clare Quilty (2nd nomination)


 * 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   redirect to Lolita. until an article can be written that, per the comments below, introduces material that does not duplicate that elsewhere. History preserved in redirect. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Clare Quilty
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Completely unreferenced non-notable character bio. In the Novel section is simply a rehash of the plot and the two sections detailing "differences" in the film versions are original research. Nothing new is introduced in this article that isn't already included in Lolita, Lolita (1962 film) or Lolita (1997 film).  Sottolacqua  (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Undecided- but probably delete. Agree that little new is introduced. Disagree somewhat about differences in film version. The existing material both could be easily sourced and can be expanded. Could be expanded further to include other "incarnations" of Lolita, the unused Nabokov screenplay, Albee's play, the Brit play that omits Quilty, the two rewrites of Lolita from L's point of view, the Russian opera of Lolita. etc. Material on Q in novel needs to be proportionately shrunk while material on Q in other media is expanded.

Agree it is unreferenced. Disagree it is non-notable. Humbert, Lolita, and Quilty are the three major characters, though Q is neglected. Of course, raises question why we don't have articles on Humbert & Lolita. (For that matter why regarding the film Chinatown did we for a while have an article on Noah Cross, but none on Jake Gittes. The Cross one was eventually deleted.) Such articles could be good if the characters were tracked across various media, but no one is doing that.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * For the reasons articulated by multiple editors in the prior AfD, I think an article could be written about Quilty, and I do think he's a notable character. However, I don't see much of anything in the current article other than extremely detailed plot summary.  The edit history might be useful to someone down the road in preparing a valid article. So, on balance, I do not favor deletion, but I would not be opposed to blanking and redirecting to Lolita until a better start is made on this subject.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep mahor character in famous novel from very famous author. The comparison of the plots of the different versions is what make it necessary and appropriate to have the separate article. The rule against plot-only applies to  the overall coverage of the fiction, not each individual portion of the coverage--otherwise we could never have articles for characters or plot elements, even the most famous characters or important elements--I am aware that a few people want just that, but famous novels aren;t the place to start. I don;t get bothered when a deletion is proposed for a character is a notable  but not famous work of fiction--the famous ones are different. This is an  encyclopedia, &  encyclopedias give more detailed coverage to what is more important.    DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment—The entire article is either unreferenced original research comparing the two works or regurgitation of plot details included in the parent articles. There is nothing within this article proposed for deletion that is not already part of a larger, main article. With regard to your comment about notability, the work of fiction is clearly more notable than the character/subject of this article.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2010 (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.