| Revision as of 17:33, 12 December 2024 editRorshacma (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,642 edits →Ramona Quimby← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:43, 12 December 2024 edit undoJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,425 edits →Ramona Quimby: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| *'''Keep''' per sources given by Jclemens, showing GNG and notability. ] (]) 04:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per sources given by Jclemens, showing GNG and notability. ] (]) 04:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Redirect/Merge''' ] to ] per ]. Neither article is long enough on its own to necessitate having separate articles (especially once some of the unsourced plot info is trimmed out of this one), and it makes the most sense to cover the series of books along with its titular character in the same article in this case. While its true that there are some cases we do have separate articles for a series/movie/etc and its titular character, I don't think the sources on Ramona herself are substantial enough where that would be necessary here, or would help readers get the information they are looking for. The ] article, which has been bundled in with this one, should be '''Procedurally Kept''' with no prejudice against renominating as its own AFD. As a main character in two separate notable book series (both the ] and ] article lists her as a main character), the same consensus for Ramona really can't be applied as part of the same discussion as Beezus, so this really should not have been a bundled AFD. I am pinging the previous participants to comment on the Beezus article as well, as it looks like they may have missed that this is a bundled AFD: @], @], @], @], @]. ] (]) 17:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | *'''Redirect/Merge''' ] to ] per ]. Neither article is long enough on its own to necessitate having separate articles (especially once some of the unsourced plot info is trimmed out of this one), and it makes the most sense to cover the series of books along with its titular character in the same article in this case. While its true that there are some cases we do have separate articles for a series/movie/etc and its titular character, I don't think the sources on Ramona herself are substantial enough where that would be necessary here, or would help readers get the information they are looking for. The ] article, which has been bundled in with this one, should be '''Procedurally Kept''' with no prejudice against renominating as its own AFD. As a main character in two separate notable book series (both the ] and ] article lists her as a main character), the same consensus for Ramona really can't be applied as part of the same discussion as Beezus, so this really should not have been a bundled AFD. I am pinging the previous participants to comment on the Beezus article as well, as it looks like they may have missed that this is a bundled AFD: @], @], @], @], @]. ] (]) 17:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *:I have absolutely no issue with that as an editorial decision, but I do not think it should be considered an AfD-enforceable consensus. Per ], we're not to be having nuanced discussions here, just deciding whether something should be deleted or not, which is why I think 'keep' is the proper outcome, and what you've proposed is an eminently sensible editorial call. Also, I have no opinion on Beezus, but absent a compelling reason to delete see no reason to. Of note, the nominator {{oldid2|1262031626|left}} Misplaced Pages after apparently deciding that AfDs weren't for them. ] (]) 18:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:43, 12 December 2024
Ramona Quimby
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Ramona Quimby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Beezus Quimby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All of this is in-universe and no real world history, the sources do not help as they talk about the books or movies, not the characters. Toby2023 (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Undecided, but if the decision is not to keep, redirect to
Beverly Cleary, the author who created these characters.Ramona (novel series), per Schazjmd below. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC) - Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Ramona (novel series). The barely-used NPR source can improve the Ramona's characterization section in that article. (The NPR source is all about the character, but one source isn't sufficient for a stand-alone article.) Schazjmd (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Susan Kushner. Johnj1995 (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in addition to the above, we have Zarrillo, J. (1988). Beverly Cleary, Ramona Quimby, and the Teaching of Reading. Children's Literature Association Quarterly 13(3), 131-135. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/chq.0.0067. which, excerpted, reads, in part...
- "Cleary's Ramona, like so many kindergarteners, comes to school with three attributes that should lead to successful encounters with the printed word. She is eager to learn, she has extensive verbal ability, and she has a background with some literary works. Ramona "was a girl who could not wait. Life was so interesting she had to find out what happened next" (1968 11). She is familiar with fairy tales, and knows what type of books she likes. Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel (1939) is a favorite because it is "neither quiet nor sleepy, nor sweet and pretty" (1968 22). Ramona enters school expecting, from the first day, to learn to read and write. She learns, though, that she will spend a great deal of her time doing assignments which require her to sit quietly at her desk and complete a variety of skill-oriented exercises." Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect. Basically nothing to merge (it's all plot), and while the two sources above could be used to support the series page they are not enough to base an entire character article on. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- No one said they were. Two good sources means GNG is met, so no reason for deletion exists, so the AfD should be closed as keep and any discussion on merging should take place on the talk page--this is not Articles for Discussion, but Deletion. Two sources aren't all that exist, either, and it's puzzling that you would imply that only these two sources would be used to flesh out the character article. In fact, once notability is established, it's entirely fine to use primary sourcing appropriately in a fictional character article. Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- For fictional characters, especially eponymous ones, the notability is intertwined with the work and there is not enough here that is strictly independent from the parent work for there to be an article that does not violate WP:NOTPLOT. The suggested sourcing is not enough to counteract that. Even if it technically fulfills GNG, I would argue for there to only be one page per WP:NOPAGE given the main character of a children's work like this tends to be overlapping. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- You make a valid point about eponymous characters, but I will note that even for eponymous franchises, we typically do have separate articles for the lead character: Veronica Mars vs. Veronica Mars (character), or Buffy Summers vs. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Ramona may not have that level of pop culture cachet, but again--there are probably more sources an interested party could use. Deletion is a last resort when editing cannot (not has not) fix a problem. The sources so far demonstrate that there are probably others, and, even if there are not, the plot can be trimmed appropriately, again through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, wholesale deletion would be, but I don't think merging/redirection is as "last resort" as that - which is what I am proposing. I think content here would, at the current stage, work best as one page - even if it can be written to be better later, which I am unsure of but is possible - I think as it is now it would best serve the readers as one page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- You make a valid point about eponymous characters, but I will note that even for eponymous franchises, we typically do have separate articles for the lead character: Veronica Mars vs. Veronica Mars (character), or Buffy Summers vs. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Ramona may not have that level of pop culture cachet, but again--there are probably more sources an interested party could use. Deletion is a last resort when editing cannot (not has not) fix a problem. The sources so far demonstrate that there are probably others, and, even if there are not, the plot can be trimmed appropriately, again through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- For fictional characters, especially eponymous ones, the notability is intertwined with the work and there is not enough here that is strictly independent from the parent work for there to be an article that does not violate WP:NOTPLOT. The suggested sourcing is not enough to counteract that. Even if it technically fulfills GNG, I would argue for there to only be one page per WP:NOPAGE given the main character of a children's work like this tends to be overlapping. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- No one said they were. Two good sources means GNG is met, so no reason for deletion exists, so the AfD should be closed as keep and any discussion on merging should take place on the talk page--this is not Articles for Discussion, but Deletion. Two sources aren't all that exist, either, and it's puzzling that you would imply that only these two sources would be used to flesh out the character article. In fact, once notability is established, it's entirely fine to use primary sourcing appropriately in a fictional character article. Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per sources given by Jclemens, showing GNG and notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect/Merge Ramona Quimby to Ramona (novel series)#Ramona's characterization per WP:NOPAGE. Neither article is long enough on its own to necessitate having separate articles (especially once some of the unsourced plot info is trimmed out of this one), and it makes the most sense to cover the series of books along with its titular character in the same article in this case. While its true that there are some cases we do have separate articles for a series/movie/etc and its titular character, I don't think the sources on Ramona herself are substantial enough where that would be necessary here, or would help readers get the information they are looking for. The Beezus Quimby article, which has been bundled in with this one, should be Procedurally Kept with no prejudice against renominating as its own AFD. As a main character in two separate notable book series (both the Ramona (novel series) and Henry Huggins article lists her as a main character), the same consensus for Ramona really can't be applied as part of the same discussion as Beezus, so this really should not have been a bundled AFD. I am pinging the previous participants to comment on the Beezus article as well, as it looks like they may have missed that this is a bundled AFD: @Metropolitan90, @Schazjmd, @Jclemens, @PARAKANYAA, @DaniloDaysOfOurLives. Rorshacma (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no issue with that as an editorial decision, but I do not think it should be considered an AfD-enforceable consensus. Per WP:PEREN#Rename AfD, we're not to be having nuanced discussions here, just deciding whether something should be deleted or not, which is why I think 'keep' is the proper outcome, and what you've proposed is an eminently sensible editorial call. Also, I have no opinion on Beezus, but absent a compelling reason to delete see no reason to. Of note, the nominator left Misplaced Pages after apparently deciding that AfDs weren't for them. Jclemens (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)