Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clare Quilty
- 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. John254 00:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clare Quilty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No real-world notability from reliable sources. Redirect to Lolita. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep
- Citation Detail Title:Two looks at adultery Authors:Gary Arnold Source:Washington Times, The (DC); 07/19/2007:
- "Lolita" was also released in 1962 and should have earned Mr. Sellers at least an Academy Award nomination for best supporting actor. Indeed, his performance as the lecherous, shape-shifting Clare Quilty might serve as a template for what an optimum supporting performance can be.
- Title:COVER STORY; Looking for Peter Sellers; In the Dark World Behind Zee Funny Mustache. Authors:JESSE McKINLEY Source:New York Times; 12/ 5/2004, p4, 1p -- Also has a discussion of Sellers' performance in this role.
- google books lists 475 hits for the term "clare quilty," the first page of which appear to be WP:RS books talking about Kubrick (who directed Sellers in the movie role) or Nabokov himself.
- Citation Detail Title:Two looks at adultery Authors:Gary Arnold Source:Washington Times, The (DC); 07/19/2007:
Sorry, but the most basic searches show that, while the article is in need of cleanup, the nominator failed to execute the responsibilities outlined in WP:BEFORE. Jclemens (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect that you disagree with me, but are any of those sources about Quilty? Or are they books/articles that *mention* quilty? Remember, we're talking about the notability of the *character* here. Just as an example, your NY Times article barely mentions Quilty in passing - certainly not the "substantial coverage" that's required to satisfy notability. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look at the full text of the article, or just the one excerpt I provided? Did you look at any of the Google Books references? While you're fulfilling your responsibilities per WP:BEFORE to search for such things, you might consider also reviewing the 149 Google Scholar hits. Jclemens (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked through several of the most promising looking scholar articles, almost all of which focus on the work Lolita, not on Quilty. Have you found any sources that provide "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A source does not have to be solely about the character to provide "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". With that kind of reasoning, books about the American Civil War would not count as sources for Robert E Lee. Edward321 (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked through several of the most promising looking scholar articles, almost all of which focus on the work Lolita, not on Quilty. Have you found any sources that provide "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look at the full text of the article, or just the one excerpt I provided? Did you look at any of the Google Books references? While you're fulfilling your responsibilities per WP:BEFORE to search for such things, you might consider also reviewing the 149 Google Scholar hits. Jclemens (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect that you disagree with me, but are any of those sources about Quilty? Or are they books/articles that *mention* quilty? Remember, we're talking about the notability of the *character* here. Just as an example, your NY Times article barely mentions Quilty in passing - certainly not the "substantial coverage" that's required to satisfy notability. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A source does not have to focus on the subject, just contain significant information on the subject. This is a major character in a major work of one of the most important authors in world literature, (not to mention the film). Way over the bar for a separate article. FWIW, this sort of attempted deletion of figures in classic literature was what made me realize that the fictions I didn't personally pay much attention to were worth covering also. DGG (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, major character in major work of the 20th century really should be enough. Quilty is covered in depth in certainly most if not all of the numerous works of criticism of Lolita and Nabokov's oeuvre. Certainly there may be some critics who treat him with lesser importance than Humbert or Haze, but he is clearly significant and pivotal within the context of the novel itself. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - at the risk of invoking WP:WAX, if we can have a decidedly minor Star Trek character of Vash with an article, surely a major character in an important work of literature with academic papers covering it can also have an article -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2008 (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.
