Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Lady (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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 05:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Dark Lady (character)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no evidence that this is a legitimate stock character, and most of the article is about the Shakespeare character (which already has its own article at Dark Lady (Shakespeare)). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The stereotype appears in many other works besides Shakespeare. For example, here's another source and yet more. Andrew D. (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently there is a tragic mulatto article for that character archetype. Making this article still superflous.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The mulatto is just one sort of dark lady. The substantial nature of that article, as well as the Shakespeare case, further demonstrates that we need this page as a broad concept article to disambiguate all the various examples and sub-types.  As another example of these, see this paper about the dark ladies of Edgar Allan Poe – women who are doomed, dying or dead. Andrew D. (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is WP:OR to connect one author's "Dark Lady" character (in this case, Leslie Fiedler's or Edgar Allan Poe's) with another's (Shakespeare's) without a source that explicitly makes the comparison. Their having the same "name" is not enough. If you want to completely throw out everything in the article and rewrite it to compare Poe's various Dark Ladies to each other, using the Narendra source, that would be fine, but you could do that with the page being deleted as well. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 20:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, juuxtaposition of content under the same heading is not OR; it's our normal way of editing. The guideline WP:BROAD tells us that bringing such material together is best practise. Andrew D. (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh dear... please tell me you are joking...? WP:SYNTH is quite explicit that drawing original comparisons between literary "characters" based on their being discussed in sources using the same words (but without the sources directly comparing them) is disallowed. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As Hijiri said, mashing all literary mentions of a "Dark Lady" would violate WP:SYNTH. If a particular author's use of a Dark Lady character is notable, then it should have its own article, not a broad concept article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 00:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The Dark Lord (fiction) and Dark Lady are regular components of fiction. Ample references to prove that.   D r e a m Focus  11:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I added in a reference a song by Cher about a dark lady, called Dark Lady. Sifting through various results in Google news, I see them refer to Hela from Marvel's Thor series as a dark lady.    D r e a m Focus  18:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Use of "lady" as a noun-adjunct (they actually refer to her as a "dark lady villain") is clearly unrelated. She is a villain who is both dark and a lady. Please be more careful with sourcing, and stop !voting down AFDs based solely on principle while trying to find "sources" that might seem to support your principle if other editors don't actually click on them. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 20:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * On top of that, the way the fictional works in question use "lady", it is obviously the female equivalent of "gentleman", not the female equivalent of "lord"; I've been an on-and-off fantasy junkie for most of my life (I'm 29 now; my first time playing a Dungeons & Dragons-based video game was when I was 11) and have rarely encountered "Dark Ladies" -- if they exist at all, they are surely a deliberate and obvious inversion of the Dark Lord trope. Even the Korean film review linked does not refer to Hela as a "Dark Lady" but as a villain who is both dark and a lady (in the sense of simply being female -- it's not very PC, but a close read shows a bunch of English errors, and the writer's other articles are not much better). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Stop WP:HOUNDING me. You know that's against the rules.  You have no possible reason to be following me around constantly.  You did so here and also at  which was not tagged for the Article Rescue Squadron.   D r e a m Focus  20:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You can't claim HOUNDING when this AFD was posted to ARS and I've !voted in a half-dozen other AFDs posted their in the past month. On top of that, you have clearly been the one hounding me -- both your unusually high edit count since you started interacting with me (more edits in three weeks that in the previous five months) and the actual contents of your edits (the majority of your edits for the past two weeks relate to an article you followed me to) support this. The only "hounding" of you I did was legitimate investigation into serious copyright concerns that have yet to be resolved since you refused to heed the warnings. I commented in the Sikhism caste AFD because I noticed a questionable remark made by GB Fan (not you), and had seen the AFD earlier (before you even commented there) because of a notification on Andrew Davidson's talk page. I have that talk page watchlisted because I am still waiting on his response to my three-weeks-ago request for a retraction of an earlier bogus claim he made (which made somewhat unfair assumptions about my familiarity with Buddhism) and have a tendency to WP:AGF as a suicide pact; it had nothing whatsoever to do with you. And could you please remain focused on content? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 20:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was in the AFD for that Mottainai in 2013, and during your attack on the ARS you mentioned it, and how horrible you thought it was that after it ended in KEEP no additional work was done on it. I was nice enough to toss out three links to reliable sources about it for future expansion on the talk page.  You then went on the attack, and refuse to let up.  You even followed me to an article I made about a virus  among many other places.  Wherever I go, you show up, sometimes with an excuse, sometimes not.  The time of you going to the Sikhism AFD seems suspicious looking at your edit history.  And you start your same rant against me and the ARS there for some reason.  I was less active on Wikipedia for awhile, then I come back, and end up drawn into long pointless discussions with you on article talk pages, user talk pages, and AFDs all over the place.  I assure you, if I could avoid any conversation with you I would.  But I can't do that when you keep showing up everywhere I go.   D r e a m Focus  01:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (I do not accept your half-excuse for your recent hounding of me, as it doesn't explain your massive explosion of activity in recent weeks, but I'd really rather not discuss that any further.) Promise to stop making problematic content edits and I'll stop checking your (recent) contribs; this petered out with you claiming an inability to paraphrase appropriately and criticizing the rev-del of your copyvio text. Your older contribs will of course need to be investigated regardless of whether you acknowledge and apologize for your copy-pasting and close paraphrasing, as Wikipedia cannot contain closely paraphrased text. But I am not even here because I checked your contribs -- I watch the so-called "Rescue List", the same as you, noticed the problematic non-neutral canvassing message about this AFD, and decided to show up and express an opinion -- so this whole discussion is tangential. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Dark Lady (Shakespeare) already exists, and everything else in the article except for a single line about Latinas is unsourced (and for some reason the GBooks link there is returning an error, although I suspect, given that no page number is given, that it doesn't actually talk about a literary archetype called a "Dark Lady" and just says "shadowy woman" or something like that). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 20:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems to be an article synthesized from a combination of uses of terms that would actually be fit under the Shakespeare term, the Tragic mulatto article, or simply characters with that name, rather than coverage of the actual independent topic as a notable stock character concept.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is easy to find coverage of the matter as a general concept rather than as a specific example. For example, here's yet another source: The Dark Lady.  Andrew D. (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to rewrite the article to be about something completely different (in this latest case, the dilithic "Dark Lady" motif from Italian baroque poetry), fire ahead. It doesn't change the fact that your source is not about a "character" and that the article as is is nothing but SYNTH that has nothing to do with any of the sources you and DF have located. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete there doesn't seem to be enough sources to prove that this is a notable character in the same way as the Dark Lord is. The term Lady in the examples given is not used in the same way as Lord but rather as an analogy for woman. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:27, 8 March 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.