Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blanche Hudson

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Shimeru (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blanche Hudson

[edit]
Blanche Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same arguments for deletion as mentioned in related AFD. Essentially a duplication of character exposition and plot detail already included in What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (film) article. No additional published character analysis available and article appears to be mostly original research. Mostly unsourced content as well. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Jane Hudson
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Sottolacqua (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' One of the 2 principal characters in a very famous film and its follow-ups. There's fairly extensive discussion of the movie available, and it cannot fail to mention the two contending characters--especially because they were interpreted by very famous actresses in signature roles, Better Davis and this role by Joan Crawford The material in the article duplicates too much of the main article, and appropriate sourced criticism needs to be added. Not my subject, and some of our best editors in this sort of sourcing are no longer active. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a character specific section made in the main article. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep of iconic film character who has established notability through being examined in depth in many books, such as Horror Film: Creating and Marketing Fear by Steffen Hantke, Body and soul: the cinematic vision of Robert Aldrich by Tony Williams, Magill's survey of cinema by Frank Northen Magill and Stephen L. Hanson, Vanishing women: magic, film, and feminism by Karen Redrobe Beckman, Bette Davis: the performances that made her great by Peter McNally, Cinefantastique, Volume 3 by Frederick S Clarke, Joan Crawford: Hollywood Martyr by David Bret. Joan Crawford: the essential biography by Lawrence J. Quirk and William Schoell, Figuring age: women, bodies, generations by Kathleen M. Woodward, Twisted Head: An Italian American Memoir by Carl Capotorto, The cinema of isolation: a history of physical disability in the movies by Martin F. Norden... and many others found through searches. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The keep arguments still do not address the fact that the entire contents of both articles are merely a duplication of the plot section of the film article. There is no new information being introduced in either of these articles that isn't already covered in the film's article. There is absolutely no reason for such a duplication. Any character related information can easily be included in a smaller section within the film article. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The contents are hardly "duplication" of articles that deal with subject in a lesser manner... but rather expansions that increase a reader's understanding of the subjects. When any related article expands in-depth on a topic, it can become an encyclopdic article in its own right. For instance, the film article at What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962 film) attempts to cover the film's Plot, Production notes, Cast, Critical reception, Awards and nominations, Box office & In popular culture in its 2127 B length. The article about the 1960 noverl at What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? is a 2838 B unsourced plot summary... likely to itself be sent to AFD for that lack. Far shorter, the article at What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1991 TV movie) is only a 417 B stub. By comparison, the article at Blanche Hudson is a healthy 1927 B long and deals with the character in depth, expanding with content not in the film or book articles. So no, I do not see these more inciteful articles as duplicative of those others... bur rather as acceptable WP:SPINOUTS of notable characters that increase a reader's understanding of the subject. Are you now suggesting that the content from the larger SPINOUTS be merged into one of the film articles... or into the unsourced book article? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm adding my comments here from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Jane Hudson discussion because they also apply to the argument of deleting this article:

          I am not stating that this is duplication of a smaller article. Baby Jane Hudson is clearly the lesser article of What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (film)#Plot and contains not one single new piece of information, character analysis or exposition that is not already contained in the Plot section of the main article. There is absolutely 100% not one single iota of new information presented in the Baby Jane Hudson article that the reader can glean about the character. Not one single thing. It's merely a regurgitation of information already included in another article. There is no discussion about mental illness, what drives Jane to torture Blanche, character analysis of others presented, etc.

Same exact statements apply to this article. For those arguing keeping it, this is not about whether or not the character is notable. The article as it stands contains not one single additional piece of information not already stated in the plot section of the film's article. Sottolacqua (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • A keep or delte of an individual character article is most definitely about the character being notable. I have seen no refutation of the fact that Blanche Hudson is an assuredly notable and quite iconic character in the original novel and in two films.... only concerns over content. What would be of benefit to the project is for the article to expanded and better sourced through regular editing. The character's notability merits an individual article, and does not merit being relegated to a subsection in an article about one film. Your own comment immediately above about what the spinoff lacks underscores that it is time to further WP:IMPROVE this character article through regular editing... but not through deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen no refutation of the fact that Blanche Hudson is an assuredly notable and quite iconic character in the original novel and in two films.... only concerns over content- MQS. That is it in a nutshell. Szzuk (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2010 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blanche_Hudson&oldid=1196282678"