Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Blackett (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   keep. yandman 15:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Blackett (character)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability not established. Significant OR. This article was posted to GAN where I reviewed and failed it. On second thought, I realized notability was not established and brought the article here for community input and assessment. Article fails the WP test for stand alone articles about fictional elements and does not merit a stand alone article. At best, the article should be have the flab cut away and then merged with a larger article such as Swallows and Amazons or the "List of characters from Arthur Ransome books".ItsLassieTime (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: vide the literary significance, both within Ransome's work and in a wider context, as an early feminist role-model for children, independently sourced and cited from feminist author and academic Sara Maitland. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Major character in major series of children's novels. articles is well-sourced. Edward321 (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I question whether the series is "major". It has won no awards in the field of children's literature and has generated no critical reviews or commentary from experts in the field of children's literature. Sara Maitland has essentially given a testimonial -- "I like the books because ...". She's not an expert in the field of children's literature and the little she has to say does not merit a stand alone article at WP. There is no evidence that Nancy Blackett has had any significant impact on children's literature then or now.  It is not "major" by any stretch of the imagination. It is simply another period juvenile series like so many others.  But aside from that ... the article fails to meet the WP criteria for stand alone articles about fictional characters.  Ay, there's the rub. The article is sourced but not "well-sourced." Several refs are the novels themselves or related material from the series publisher (who has an interest, of course, in selling the books). One source is something of a "fan" journal from The Athur Ransome Society and is questionable as a reliable secondary source because fan clubs cannot help but be biased.  Another source is a fan-bloggy sort of thing. And another source does little more than mention the character's name.  There are no reliable secondary sources.  While one may have a soft spot in one's heart for these books, that soft spot does not warrant a stand alone article for Nancy Blackett.  The article should be have the flab cut away and what remains merged into a larger article such as the parent series Swallows and Amazons or the "List of characters in the books of Arthur Ransome". ItsLassieTime (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the Carnegie Medal in Literature for Pigeon Post is a major award. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It should also be pointed out that this was the very first Carnegie Award ever made so the first five books were ineligble and also that Ransome must have been held in considerable respect by his contemporaries. Dabbler (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not correct to say that the books are ignored by literary critics: they are well covered. Just two from the first page of googlehits: Peter Hunt, prominent critic of children's literature, regularly uses examples from S&A to illustrate his books: an example is Approaching Arthur Ransome, ISBN 0224032887. Another is from Victor Watson in Reading Series Fiction ISBN 041522702X, drawing on the series to explain his points. Shortage of space and time forbids more, but: etc., etc., etc. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That may be but the Nancy Blackett article doesn't indicate anything about literary criticism and our editor seems entirely unaware of it. That literary criticism must be directed at Nancy Blackett -- not the series in general -- for this article to avoid deletion. ItsLassieTime (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Literary criticism: Fair point. Falling back on Victor Watson Reading Series Fiction again: "In the last two novels of the series, Nancy Blackett is represented as the most important of the older children—no longer a kind of zany clown and instigator of wild enterprises, but an energetic and imaginative supporter of the needs of the younger members of the group. But more of that later." In fact he gives her a chapter to herself. All this still from first work in the first page of googlehits. The fact that the available literary criticism specifically about Nancy hasn't yet been incorporated into the article is an argument for improvement, not deletion. Still keep. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not just "our editor" in Wikipedia is it? Its a collaborative project and no one editor has a monopoly of wisdom or knowledge. Perhaps this furore will bring out other editors who can help improve the article rather than destroy all the work done so far by User:Nancy. Dabbler (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Swallows and Amazons is a book series that has remained constantly in print in the UK since the 1920s. That has also been published in several American, Australian, and Canadian versions. That has been translated in to dozens of languages. That has generated a rainforest of critical commentary as well as being used in the analysis of cultural phenomena  etc etc etc 87.81.180.231 (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible keep Eminently notable as Arthur Ransome's favourite character (so much so that he named his boat after her) and a major plot defining character in the classic, award winning (thanks Old Moonraker for finding that) Swallows and Amazon's series. And just because the lit crit isn't in the article yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Nancy  talk  17:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nancy, what you don't understand is this: the article fails the WP test for notability in fictional elements. Go here to read for yourself:

Nancy Blackett dismally fails the test. The purpose of the test (among other things) is to prevent editors from filling WP with hundreds of thousands of thousands of articles about every fictional character ever created in the world no matter how insignificant. And you're setting off on that road. I expect if you win this one, you'll be filling the database with stand alone articles about every character in the series. While that is fine for something like the database at The Arthur Ransome Society, it is not fine for WP. Nancy Blackett (character) can be heavily edited and taken to the "Characters" section of Swallows and Amazons. The "Appearances" section is fancruft.

Here is relevant material from the guidelines for easy reference:

Notability of elements within a fictional work

Articles covering elements within a fictional work are generally retained if their coverage meets these three conditions:

1. Importance of the fictional work: To justify articles on individual elements, the fictional work from which they come must have produced significant artistic impact, cultural impact, or general popularity. This is shown when the work (not the element) exceeds the relevant notability guidelines. 2. Role within the fictional work: The element must be an important element, as evidenced by commentary from reliable sources. For example, importance can be established through the use of sources with a connection to the creators of the fictional work, such as author commentary, but in any case, bald assertions of importance are insufficient.

3. Real-world coverage: Significant real-world information must exist on the element beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work. Examples of real-world coverage include: creative influences, design processes, critical commentary, and cultural reception. Merely listing the notable works where the fictional element appears, their respective release dates, and the names of the production staff is not sufficient.

You haven't established the S&A series produced any significant artistic or cultural impact nor does the parent article. The operative word is significant. Did the series influence other authors to create similar characters or novels? Did Nancy Blackett or the series generate a series of toys, or dolls, party favors, a song, school supplies like pencil cases, or a line of children's clothing? You must tell us. This is artistic and cultural impact. If it did, you must establish this in the article through the use of reliable secondary sources. You must establish that the series enjoyed general popularity through something like sales figures, awards, reviews, published disinterested commentary, etc. While one book from the series apparently won one award, that does not speak to the entire series, only the one book. And it doesn't speak to Nancy Blackett at all.

If you were writing about a television character, for example, you could establish the show's general popularity through the show's ratings. "The show placed in the top-ten for its entire run." That sort of thing. For this series of books, you would need to cite a critical commentary, "Library Journal and The Times Review of Children's Books indicates that Swallows and Amazons was one of the top-selling juvenile series in the first half of the twentieth century." Something like that. You haven't done this. You could use the fact that the series has been in print for many years. This establishes general popularity. And you must mention this in the article. "Nancy Blackett is a fictional character in the juvenile books Swallows and Amazons, a series that has been printed in several languages and has never been out of print in the UK since its first release." Something like that. And you must cite a reliable souce for the statement. You haven't done this and that is one of the reasons the article is up for deletion.

There is no significant real-world coverage of Nancy Blackett -- most importantly, there is no significant coverage by experts in the field of children's literature. Sara Maitland apparently is not an expert in children's literature and what you've cited is essentially a testimonial. "I like the books because I'm a feminist and there are some feminist touches in the books." There is no objective significant critical coverage of Nancy Blackett in the manner of Harry Potter, Nancy Drew, Winnie the Pooh, and dozens of other juvenile fictional characters. The coverage must be that of disinterested parties like book reviewers and experts in the field of children's literature. Not fans. ItsLassieTime (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep While this is not one of WP's greatest articles, Nancy seems to be notable enough for her own article. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is NOT one of WP's strongest articles. ItsLassieTime (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The main problem with this article is that it was nominated for a Good Article review too soon and unfortunately attracted negative attention from a reviewer unfamiliar with the topic and its origins. Given more time this article could well be developed along the desired lines. As for notability, Ransome has a literary society devoted to studying his life and works and promoting activities. This has a significant worldwide membership not just in English speaking countries but also Japan, the Czech Republic. Nancy Blackett is considered by far and away Ransome's most popular character. Dabbler (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is a bad article from the get go. For one thing, it has a truckload of bulleted OR material. While there is a club for the author, that speaks to the author -- NOT the character Nancy Blackett. Nancy Blackett is NOT notable because Arthur Ransome has a club for himself. While Nancy Blackett may be a popular character with Ransome fans, that popularity must be established in the article through reliable secondary sources which the editor has failed to do and that is why the article has been nominated for deletion. ItsLassieTime (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - The nominator's claim that there is no independent coverage is false. As well as the Carnegie award, there's also the fact that the first book in the series was adapted as a successful feature film. Biographies and documentaries about Ransome's life stress the importance of this particular character. I'd like to assume good faith, but the nominator seems determined to ignore the facts and post walls of text. Keep, keep, keep, AlexTiefling (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Carnegie award and the movie adaptation apply to their respective titles -- NOT to Nancy Blackett. They can be used to establish the notability of the series -- NOT Nancy Blackett. Simply because one book won one award does NOT make Nancy Blackett notable. The editor of the article has a long way to go before making this article a keeper. It needs to be sourced from the work of critics and experts in the field of children's literature NOT fans of the books or anything related to fandom.  If there is tons of material about Nancy Blackett in Ransome biographies and documentaries, why has the editor not sourced that material? Even then that material needs to be supported from reliable secondary sources like critics, reviewers, and experts. ItsLassieTime (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator is pointing out ways in which the article needs be improved and many of these, such as wider sourcing, are valid. However he/she continues to advocate deletion, thus denying editors the chance to do it! --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources exist. Several magazines have been published each year, for almost 20 years, by the TARS society.  They aren't accessilbe online (that I've seen) but I think we can give this article the benefit of the doubt for that part.  Even if they don't, there's enough on the web for an article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the notability does exist and it is a major character.Smallman12q (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So she's a major character in the books. Big deal. If notability exists, then it's the editor's job to establish it. It's not my job (or your's) to run around the web looking for reliable secondary sources and that's why the article is up for deletion -- because the editor has failed to establish notability. What I'm seeing now is the "plot" section being expanded (who cares?, we can learn all about Nancy's character and doings by reading the books) and I notice the referencing being reformatted in an attempt to convince us this article is something important.  While the reformatting is a bit of an improvement, few good reliable secondary sources from non-biased critics, reviewers, and experts in the field of children's literature have been cited. One source is OR. But that OR needs to be referenced in a secondary source. Sources have ties to Ransome's publisher Jonathan Cape who naturally has an interest in selling the books and will continue to publish commentary on the books for hungry fans.  The whole article is based upon a circle of fans and fandom. (And I wish the editor would get rid of that "Appearances" section -- it is nothing but unsourced fancruft and trivia.  The article can be significantly improved by getting rid of that list! And bulleted "lists" like that are a WP no-no anyway!  Ditto for that bulleted film section. I can't understand why the film section hasn't been developed. Reviews from critics, etc.) Also, Nancy's origins should have a separate section and not be a part of the Character section. This is the important thing -- get some unbiased, objective sources from reviewers, critics, and experts in the field of children's literature who have not been published by Jonathan Cape or the Arthur Ransome Society. JC and AR are biased. There should be no taint of bias in the sourcing.  While JC and AR are OK to use here and there, the article should not depend solely upon them.  The meat and potatoes should be sourced from unbiased, main stream sources that establish Nancy's place and importance in children's literature, her influence upon children's literature and culture, etc. 19:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)ItsLassieTime (talk)
 * ';Comment - Please don't !vote twice. You seem to have a mistaken impression of the Wikipedia editing process. You keep referring to what 'the editor' should do. Go and read WP:OWN: we are all editors, and any of us can improve this article.AlexTiefling (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, did I !vote twice? I scanned the article before I voted and missed it. I'll take your word for it and delete my !vote here. I think people know how i feel anyway. ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd assumed that as nominator, you were considered to have voted when you nominated. I apologise if I've confused matters with this assumption. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that even if we do find original non-secondary sources, they will be unacceptable if they happen to be published by the same publisher as Ransome's books (Jonathan Cape). This is an unreasonable stipulation. No commentary on Harry Potter will ever be published by Bloomsbury? Macmillan can't publish books on Kipling?. Lets be fair, publishers publish books that they think will make money and authors may approach a publisher that they think will be sympathetic because they already have a list with items that are similar or connected. Dabbler (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The editor should investigate the lesbian angle hinted at by one critical commentator instead of sweeping it under the rug.  This would bring an interesting 21st century color to the article which now reminds me of musty old, worm eaten wood pulp pages and faded, tattered dust jackets.  How many of Nancy's child fans matured into lesbians? Is Sara Maitland a lesbian?  A lesbian investigation into Nancy Blackett could bring a nice updated angle to the article. Please pursue it. ItsLassieTime (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - it's really not the purpose of an AfD discussion for the nominator to propose esoteric lines of research for other editors. I also don't think that books lack proper independence just because they have the same publisher. (Compare, for example, the number of books about JRR Tolkein and his work which are published by Harper-Collins.) AlexTiefling (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - yes, I realized that too late and moved the suggestion to the talk page of the article. Thanks Alex for being on your toes over that one! Whew! What the article needs is some sourcing outside the Arthur Ransome/Amazons and Swallows universe, especially sourcing from experts in children's literature. I don't believe this article should be sourced entirely from material produced by Ransome's publisher. It taints the article. It needs sourcing from non-Jonathan Cape/non-Arthur Ransome Society experts in children literature who have evalutated Nancy and placed her in perspective. While the JC and AR references are OK, they should be supported and enhanced by material from college and university journals and presses, children's lit reviews and journals.  If Nancy is notable (and that's the issue) then college and university presses, kid's lit jouranls, and others will have something to say about her.  WP asks this in order to prevent the overzealous from creating un- and poorly sourced articles about every single fictional character in the world since the dawn of civilization.  I hope you understand this. And yes, I would expect WP articles about Tolkein and his universe to have some sourcing independent of his publisher. That's not an unreasonable expectation. ItsLassieTime (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Right near the top of the Google Books results for the article title we find this whole chapter in a book published by Routledge about the subject. Could I suggest that the nominator withdraw this absurd nomination rather than carrying on flogging a dead horse? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Shiver me timbers! Lookie what ye've found! ONE non-JC or TARS source! Avast, me hearties! Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum! This source was part of the Nancy Blackett article at one time but for some reason it was scuttled. I'm surprised others haven't mentioned this chapter. I scanned it and didn't see a ton of significant stuff about Nancy Blackett but as I noted, I only scanned it. Let's see if the article's editors can glean something substantial from it! Whee! X marks the spot and I think we may have hit the jackpot here! ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This unseemly glee may be misplaced: is the nominator actually bothering to read anybody else's stuff? This chapter was mentioned at "Literary criticism", above, in direct reply to one of his/her points. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The same thought occurred to me. The nominator's approach and methods seem very peculiar to me. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article does NOT estabish Nancy Blackett's notability with reliable secondary sources. WP poses such a difficult test for character articles in order to avoid having thousands of poorly sourced character articles dumped here.  Fans will be fans and they will dump every single fictional character in the world at WP if there are no "rules".  Let's all be good WP editors and either improve the article with RS or admit that Nancy doesn't cut the mustard. I'm rooting for Nancy, but unless this article is significantly improved with reliable secondary sources that establish Nancy's notability, it must walk the plank. ItsLassieTime (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm thrilled to see some participants in this discussion have taken on the Nancy Blackett article and have improved it greatly. A complete make-over from what it was when posted to GAN! I believe interested editors will continue to improve the article, and there is no reason to continue this discussion. As nominator of the article's deletion, I recommend that this discusion be closed at once with a Keep for Nancy Blackett (character). Good luck and keep up the good work! ItsLassieTime (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has been improved. Have you considered withdrawing your nomination?Smallman12q (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2009 (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.