| Revision as of 22:27, 14 December 2024 editPARAKANYAA (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers43,333 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:55, 14 December 2024 edit undoJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,425 edits →Ramona Quimby: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| :There's more, but that ought to be enough for keeping as a standalone page. Pinging "merge"/"redirect" !voters ], ], ], ] for commentary on the newly provided sources. ] (]) 22:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | :There's more, but that ought to be enough for keeping as a standalone page. Pinging "merge"/"redirect" !voters ], ], ], ] for commentary on the newly provided sources. ] (]) 22:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::I remain unconvinced. As is, there is nothing here, no one is going to write it, the article as is violates ]. This is not a reason for ''deletion'', but it is a reason to merge/redirect if there is no useful content and the readers would be better served by one page. I also don't think some of these sources are very strong, or at least strong enough where the benefit is immediate given how overlapping these topics are - I disagree with the Harry Potter comparison, Harry Potter has an expansive world of lore and characters, this is not that. If someone who is really into this children's book series wants to write expansive articles, they can have at it, but no one is going to so for now this is the way to present it the best. Again, ]. Not everything that passes GNG is presented the best as its own article. ] (]) 22:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | ::I remain unconvinced. As is, there is nothing here, no one is going to write it, the article as is violates ]. This is not a reason for ''deletion'', but it is a reason to merge/redirect if there is no useful content and the readers would be better served by one page. I also don't think some of these sources are very strong, or at least strong enough where the benefit is immediate given how overlapping these topics are - I disagree with the Harry Potter comparison, Harry Potter has an expansive world of lore and characters, this is not that. If someone who is really into this children's book series wants to write expansive articles, they can have at it, but no one is going to so for now this is the way to present it the best. Again, ]. Not everything that passes GNG is presented the best as its own article. ] (]) 22:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::Per ], ] discussions aren't appropriate for AfDs. Since we all agree that it's notable the question for AfD is what to do about it. Since there's nothing wrong with the article that can't be fixed via editing, forcing a merge or redirect from AfD is outside our remit. Besides, once a page is redirected, odds of it being improved, ever, fall dramatically. ] (]) 23:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:55, 14 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)
- I was aware that the Beezus Quimby article was included in this nomination, so I have no change to my comment above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect/Merge per WP:NOPAGE. I am of the same opinion as PARAKANYAA that a better article might likely be written but is unlikely to be, and that the existing page's sources are inadequate and will overlap with the series article. As for it not being an "AfD-enforceable" issue, I am not familiar with this but from what I could find from quickly searching the archive this appears to be an unresolved issue Jclemens is involved in. I am not sure if such a large change is going to be resolved in a Ramona Quimby AfD... Οἶδα (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's not unresolved. I advocated for a change in consensus; I lost. Thus, I am doing my best to advocate for the consensus as it stands now, which is that AfD is not supposed to be doing what it is here. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am afraid I do not exactly understand. Can you direct me to the page which contains "the consensus as it stands now"? It still sounds like a larger discussion being inserted into a smaller discussion. I understand how it is related, but I do not see how this is the appropriate avenue for that discussion. If consensus changed, why do guidelines such as those at WP:GD and WP:AFDFORMAT still offer "merge" or "redirect" as closure options? I see that WP:GDBN suggests nominators consider whether they actually want the article to be merged, expanded, or cleaned up rather than deleted. But it does not appear to state that, when a deletion discussion veers toward a merge vote, that it must be appropriately closed as kept, with discussion moved to the article's talk page. Forgive me if I am wrong, but that is my interpretation of what you have said. Οἶδα (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's not unresolved. I advocated for a change in consensus; I lost. Thus, I am doing my best to advocate for the consensus as it stands now, which is that AfD is not supposed to be doing what it is here. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect or merge per Rorshacma. I don't see coverage that really separates this from Ramona (novel series). I mainly see plot summaries that recap the story for the protagonist, or otherwise comment about the Rmaona novels more generally. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This is an absurd AfD, in part because the nominator has admitted that "
I lied to you all, i didn't use WP:BEFORE, I just assumed it wasn't notable!
", and in part because Ramona as a character is one of the best known in American 20th-century children's literature. (This is a little like someone nominating Harry Potter (character) for deletion, and I hate to reward a disruptive nominator.) OK, on to sources: We already have two solid ones identified by Jclemens and Schazjmd. We also have coverage of Ramona as a character by:- Anna Katz's full-length book treatment, The Art of Ramona Quimby
- Jane Ross in The American Scholar
- Rachel Vorona Cote in Literary Hub
- Laura Vanderkam in the Wall Street Journal (also available via The Misplaced Pages Library for non-subscribers)
- Allison Hope on CNN
- Scaachi Koul in BuzzFeed
- Benson, Linda. “The Hidden Curriculum and the Child’s New Discourse: Beverly Cleary’s Ramona Goes to School.” Children’s Literature in Education, vol. 30, no. 1, Mar. 1999, pp. 9–29. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022477517959.
- Mackey, Margerey. "Ramona the chronotope: The young reader and social theories of narrative." Children's Literature in Education, v22 n2 p97-110 Jun 1991.
- There's more, but that ought to be enough for keeping as a standalone page. Pinging "merge"/"redirect" !voters Shooterwalker, Οἶδα, Rorshacma, PARAKANYAA for commentary on the newly provided sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I remain unconvinced. As is, there is nothing here, no one is going to write it, the article as is violates WP:NOTPLOT. This is not a reason for deletion, but it is a reason to merge/redirect if there is no useful content and the readers would be better served by one page. I also don't think some of these sources are very strong, or at least strong enough where the benefit is immediate given how overlapping these topics are - I disagree with the Harry Potter comparison, Harry Potter has an expansive world of lore and characters, this is not that. If someone who is really into this children's book series wants to write expansive articles, they can have at it, but no one is going to so for now this is the way to present it the best. Again, WP:NOPAGE. Not everything that passes GNG is presented the best as its own article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:PEREN#Rename AfD, WP:NOPAGE discussions aren't appropriate for AfDs. Since we all agree that it's notable the question for AfD is what to do about it. Since there's nothing wrong with the article that can't be fixed via editing, forcing a merge or redirect from AfD is outside our remit. Besides, once a page is redirected, odds of it being improved, ever, fall dramatically. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I remain unconvinced. As is, there is nothing here, no one is going to write it, the article as is violates WP:NOTPLOT. This is not a reason for deletion, but it is a reason to merge/redirect if there is no useful content and the readers would be better served by one page. I also don't think some of these sources are very strong, or at least strong enough where the benefit is immediate given how overlapping these topics are - I disagree with the Harry Potter comparison, Harry Potter has an expansive world of lore and characters, this is not that. If someone who is really into this children's book series wants to write expansive articles, they can have at it, but no one is going to so for now this is the way to present it the best. Again, WP:NOPAGE. Not everything that passes GNG is presented the best as its own article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)