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) 13:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Jane 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)

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) 00:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 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, Joan Crawford and, this role, by Better Davis. 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 Not my subject, and some of our best editors in this sort of sourcing are no longer active.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 ) 01:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nom may as well withdraw. A remarkable character acted remarkably. Chilling, and certainly there has been much discussion and debate about this character. Szzuk (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The quality of the acting is irrelevant and does not address the issues raised by the nom. Remove unsourced, OR material and merge into a character list or the film's main article. --✶♏✶ 08:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The acting is relevant, if it were poor then there would be no film page nevermind a character page. There is actually very little OR in this article, there is nothing in the article that is contentious and immediately needs citations. The article needs clean up, in particular for style. Szzuk (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep of iconic film character who has well established notability through being examined in depth in many books, such as Horror Film: Creating and Marketing Fear by Steffen Hantke, Magill's survey of cinema by Frank Northen Magill and Stephen L. Hanson, Bette Davis: the performances that made her great by Peter McNally, Joan Crawford: Hollywood Martyr by David Bret. Joan Crawford: the essential biography by Lawrence J. Quirk and William Schoell, 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.} 18:18, 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) 18:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The contents are hardly "duplication" of smaller articles of lessor or related content... 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. 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... and all this at 2127 B long. Far shorter, the article at What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1991 TV movie) is a 417 B stub. By comparison, the article at Baby Jane Hudson is a healthy 4118 B long and deals with the character in depth, expanding with content not in the shorter articles. So no, I do not see these more inciteful articles as duplicative of those with less content... but see them rather as acceptable WP:SPINOUTS of notable characters that increase a reader's understanding of the subject. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. Sottolacqua (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have repeatedly claimed that the information is a duplicate of information in the film article. You have above written "a duplication of character exposition and plot detail " and "the entire contents of both articles are merely a duplication of the plot section of the film article". Were it only a duplication, the Baby Jane Hudson article would be smaller than the plot section at What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (film)#Plot... a section at attempts to cover the entire film and not just one character. I have seen no refutation of the fact that Baby Jane 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. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
        • You're flogging a dead horse. Szzuk (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (film). There is no need for a standalone article on this subject, since the character has no presence beyond the classic movie. Warrah (talk) 12:26, 10 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.