Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Seamstress (A Tale of Two Cities) (second 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   keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Seamstress (A Tale of Two Cities)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The character does hold some importance to the character development of Sydney Carton, but her impact in the story, and in culture, is limited to that importance. Perhaps more importantly, this article has very limited sourcing and contains virtually no examination of the character's import, just a plot summary (with some extra unsourced specualtion tossed in). Powers T 14:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with A Tale of Two Cities. Not appropriate for AfD.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  16:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In what way is it not appropriate? The article you suggest already has sufficient plot summary, and this is an exceedingly unlikely search term for a redirect.  Powers T 18:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel that if something can be merged with another article, it isn't necessary to invoke the rather elaborate AfD process. I feel this could be merged with another article.  As for the redirect... well:  -- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unnecessary to merge for all that GFDL hassle. Just delete it. Eusebeus (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. In addition to an earlier discussion having already closed as keep.  This is a character from one of the great works of literature who has also been adaptated in cinema as well.  While the article as nominated may not reflect its notability due to the lack of sources, here is an instance where considerably scholarly/academic study has in fact been used on this character.  Google Books gets over a hundred hits, and looking through the results, she is indeed discussed out of universe and at length in these sources as well.  The article has importance to literary scholars, students in high school or college reading this book, as well as to film scholars and students studying adaptations of Dickens' work in cinema.  Surely, someone is able to use those books results to develop this article.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep? Which of the speedy keep criteria applies?  Powers T 03:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Previous discussion closed as keep and due to clear existence of out of universe analysis in reliable secondary sources as well as relevance to students and scholars of literature and cinema. A clear case of improveable content with real world significance.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The speedy keep criteria are here. I don't see any that apply.  Powers T 21:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am arguing to speedy keep due to the encylopedic notability of characters from this particular work and not because of that link. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the meaning of "speedy keep", then. Powers T 21:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is just that there are other instances in which speedy keep applies than the examples listed there. Once, as in this case, multiple scholarly sources have been presented, the discussion should be withdrawn, because the character meets our notability guideline.  I do not believe you nominated in bad faith, but the article is clearly improveable as it has already seen improvement and I only scratched the surface of the sources available for this character who is from one of the most notable novels of all time (one that students read in high school and college literature courses and thus one in which people read about and discuss this character in academic settings), as well as in multiple stage and screen adaptations of that novel.  I think you can make a case for merging the referenced material into the main article, or into a list of characters article, or using this article as the basis of an article on the seamstress as a character type due to the examples mentioned below that discuss this type of character in various works by Dickens and other Victorian authors, but there is no compelling reason to delete per PRESERVE as it is not original research, not duplicative, not redundant, not irrelevant, not patent nonsense, not a copywright violation, not inaccurate, and not an unsourced claim about a living person.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The character is relevant to two other characters and at the very least it could be turned into a stub containing the film and broadway information. - Mgm|(talk) 10:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BK. This decidedly minor character has not been shown to have received substantial treatment in reliable secondary sources, despite the citations added by A Nobody—some of which I suspect are to works he hasn't bothered to actually read. In the Oxford Reader's Companion to Dickens she doesn't even rate a mention in the five-and-a-half-page article (including plot summary) on A Tale of Two Cities, nor does she in the plot summary in our own article on the novel; she therefore certainly doesn't rate a stand-alone article. Deor (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * None of which is factually accurate. For one, she is mentioned in our main article on the novel.  Also, if you read the sources you will see that she gets substantial out of universe coverage in numerous reliable secondary sources and that she appears not just in one of the most notable novels of all time but also in stage adaptations of the novel.  In addition to the substantial treatment in reliable secondary sources, the information is also worth keeping per PRESERVE as it is not original research, not duplicative, not redundant, not irrelevant, not patent nonsense, not a copywright violation, not inaccurate, and not an unsourced claim about a living person.  In any event, I did a search on JSTOR, and such results as "Creating a Symbol: The Seamstress in Victorian Literature" by Lynn M. Alexander in Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 29-38 come up.  There is as such no legitimate or honest reason for deletion at this time, because being the subject of scholarly studies meets WP:FICT.  Another result using an academic search engine is Lynn M. Alexander, "Following the Thread: Dickens and the Seamstress," Victorian Newsletter 80 (Fall 1991): 1-7.  Thus, the character type of the seamstress is the focus of multiple scholarly studies and as such we can unequivocally use such sources to develop an article on Dicken's use of the seamstress or even to build on article on the character type in Victorian literature in general.  And these are just a couple of examples.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep adequate sourcing for independent notability, and all the rest of the objections are therefore irrelevant. It's not very frequent that this is the case with an unnamed character, but this is one of the exceptions.
 * Keep. Notable minor character of a literary work that has been dissected and reproduced across multiple languages and media. Plenty of sourcing exists so the rest remains regular editing which is not an AfD issue. -- Banj e  b oi   09:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvement. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, rather than merge, expand it here and have a "see main article". Also, this article is somewhate notable in that it helps us understand the movie better.Smallman12q (talk) 23:45, 27 January 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.