Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gravediggers


 * 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 by consensus as notable fictional characters. Not my thing, but who knows? Bearian 00:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Gravediggers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

While I am a fan of Hamlet, unless this article can be expanded to include more references to how the gravediggers lighten the play and the effect they have with expert commentary, this page should probably redirect to hamlet. Phgao 02:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. I've yet to hear a joke by Shakespeare that's actually funny. And their presence in the play is only intended to give the audience a relief from all the grief that's otherwise going on. Almost non-notable, except it's the Bard. -- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 02:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but I just started this page a few minutes ago. If people still find it completely unnecessary after I've done a bit more work on it, then I'll redirect it to the Hamlet page for sure. Tleighw 02:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tleighw (talk • contribs)
 * I'm gonna say Keep. Looking around on the MLA Bibliography, I found two scholarly articles which are primarily about the gravediggers:
 * Jenkins, Harold: "How Many Grave-diggers in Hamlet?" Modern Language Review, (51), 1956, 562-565. (1956)
 * Bennett, William E.: "The Gravediggers' Scene: A Unifying Thread in Hamlet" The Upstart Crow, (5), 1984 Fall, 160-165. (1984)
 * There's also endless interpretation of the characters within broader studies of Hamlet; see, , etc. Really, Hamlet's one of the most exhaustively analyzed stories in history, so even (seemingly) minor characters should deserve a place in Wikipedia. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  03:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Rodhullandemu seems to be arguing "It's not funny/I don't get it". In a technical sense they are minor characters but the scene is one of the most significant in Western literature and the choice to make this a macabre comic interlude is dramatically interesting enough that it has received significant analysis. As is the article is barely a plot summary and some unreferenced interpretations but it is definitely expandable. --Dhartung | Talk 08:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as they are not notable characters. Compare and contrast with Rosencrantz & Guildenstern whose notability is derived from adaptations outside of the play's context. I have already merged the text with Gravediggers in literature, where I think the content of this stub should be laid to rest.--Gavin Collins 09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Characters in possibly the most famous play in human history. There's are plenty of sources discussing these characters, at least in published books of literary criticism  rather than myspace.  The arguments for deletion amount to 'it's not very good yet' which is hardly surprising given the speed at which it was brought to AfD and 'I don't think Shakespeare's funny', a position whose merits are obvious.  Voltaire would have favoured deletion though, he called the whole play 'a vulgar and barbarous drama, which would not be tolerated by the vilest populace of France, or Italy' Nick mallory 11:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hamlet must be among the most discussed pieces of literature and sources will exist to expand this stub. The article's creator and others should be allowed at least a few months to source them, rather than AfDing the article the day it was created. It's hard to see how the "delete the article before the ink's dry" approach helps in building the encyclopedia. If there's still no sources after it's been around a year, say, then might be the time to consider whether it might be better merged somewhere else. Espresso Addict 13:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Zagalejo above. Rray 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Most notable play in the world, minor characters: notable article.  Plus writer should be given more time to include sources which others have suggested do indeed exist. Ca woodcock 23:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant information into Hamlet. While interesting, and part of a famous play, the characters/scene are not independently notable, nor is there a reason to fork this from the main play article. Honestly, there isn't much content here anyway, so if there's not enough to merge it should simply be Deleted. Kesh 00:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Based on comments below, I am revising my vote to Keep provided someone expands the article with proper citations. -- Kesh 14:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * the characters/scene are not independently notable Based on what criteria, if I may ask? Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  01:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There are references above indicating that those characters are specifically notable, so asking for an explanation of why they're not notable is a perfectly legitimate question here. Rray 01:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are works written about the characters, yes. I'm not convinced there's enough to satisfy WP:N though. Two magazine articles don't really substantiate the claims made above, and Google Books simply links to a passing mention in a book about the play itself. It apparently doesn't even get a chapter of it's own, just a couple paragraphs! If someone is willing to work relevant citations into the article which can show these characters and/or this scene are notable themselves, I'd be willing to reconsider. As it stands, though, I don't see it. -- Kesh 02:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Google books link you mention is just one of many Google Books results. Some are more substantial. This book seems to devote an entire chapter to the Gravediggers. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  02:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm convinced the article can be expanded. But, it needs to be. Changing my vote, provided someone actually bothers to write the article in a way that isn't a stub. -- Kesh 14:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it might be hard to do that right away, as the best sources aren't easily accessible. Just give it time to grow. There is no deadline. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  16:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Kesh, given how recent the play is, it's a shame it hasn't had more study. Perhaps in time it will, but can we wait that long? --Dhartung | Talk 04:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ... what? This is Hamlet we're talking about here. It's not exactly "recent." Besides, yes, we can wait. Some things may not be notable until after you and I are dead, and we can wait to have those articles. There is no deadline. -- Kesh 14:11, 14 October 2007 (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.