Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistress Quickly

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Jenks24 (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress Quickly

edit
Mistress Quickly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contains no valuble info whatsoever, no sources, no nothing Bertaut (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve, expand and reference. This character appeared in four, count them, four plays by William Shakespeare, and a Google Books search shows discussion in many reliable sources, especially books about the Bard's female characters. The University of Florida published a monograph about this character, for example. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree entirely with the nominator's comment, but isn't that a good argument for adding such things rather than for deleting the article? I'm a bit curious about this nomination, because the nominator has a very strong record of work on Shakespeare-related articles and I was able to easily find a number of sources that analyse the character in some detail:
And there are plenty more. Unless I'm missing something? Stalwart111 02:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well my thinking is the article has sat untouched for some time now. I'm certainly not planning on getting around to do any work on it any time soon; the fact that there is info which is readily available doesn't necessairly mean that a decent article will ever get written. And given the inactivity in general as regards Shakespeare related topics on Wikipedia (we're down to single figure regular editors now), I think the chances of anyone else doing so are slim to none. Recently an article on Katherina Minola was deleted and changed to a redirect to The Taming of the Shrew for the same reason. There is plenty of info on her out there (much more than on Mistress Quickly in fact), but the article contained no info and was inactive. No one was going to expand it, so it was deleted. I just don't see the point in having an article that is unassessed, tells us nothing and has no sources. I see the point that she's in four plays, but what does that really have to do with anything. So is Bardolph (and he has a lot more lines than her), he doesn't have an article. Peto is in three, he doesn't have an article. Margaret of Anjou is in four and there is virtually nothing relating to her as a literary figure on Wikipedia. I don't really mind one way or the other whether it gets deleted or not to be honest, it seems like a pointless 'thing' to exist. By the rational of the arguments above, virtually every character in Shakespeare should have an article on here, as they all might be expanded at some time in the future. Bertaut (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for explaining your rationale - it makes sense to me. I suppose my view is that we should have articles for each of those characters and it's a shame there aren't more editors around to contribute to their expansion. But I am comforted in that regard by WP:NORUSH. I'm a member of WikiProject Skateboarding - a project with two active members and a couple of people who work on related things when they have time. I know we won't get around to everything, but we do our best to do as much as possible. Though AFD is not for clean-up, perhaps bringing it here will prompt some people to do a bit of work on it. Stalwart111 03:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – Might it be useful to merge this brief article into List of Shakespearean characters: L-Z#M? Note the entry for 'Nell'. Praemonitus (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current content doesn't hurt anything, and the vast literature on Shakespeare means that there's tons of coverage related to this character. As far as the Milinda Jay source — it's her Ph.D. dissertation from Florida State University, so we'd have to have really strong evidence before questioning its conclusions. ProQuest is the company that's made it available, but its role isn't quite the same as that of Cambridge UP for the Hattaway Book; even if they hadn't come along, you'd still be able to get Jay's dissertation through FSU Libraries, in all likelihood. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article now has a character description and five solid references. No policy based argument for deletion has been advanced. If the nominator thinks other Shakespeare characters are more deserving of an article, then the solution is simple: write articles about those characters. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a little content as did other people. The character is notable due to coverage in books, and since she has appeared in highly notable films and operas (e.g. Chimes at Midnight, Falstaff (opera)) as well as in some very famous plays, we can expect to find much more coverage. The original reason for deletion does not apply because the article now contains some information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mistress_Quickly&oldid=1082621802"