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 speedy keep. Bad faith nom (non-admin closure) Flewis^(talk) 11:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desdemona (Othello)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established through secondary sources. Except for a very brief description of Desdemona's background as a WP lead and a very brief list of actresses who have performed the part, there is nothing to justify a stand-alone article. No analysis, no history of the role in performance, no history of the role in other media such as opera, film, comic book, etc. Article is a regurgitation of the plot of Othello and should be deleted. What little it contains of use can be taken immediately to its main article Othello. The article has been tagged for some time with no interest in upgrading and has given undue weight to pictorial illustration. ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that maybe it's unusual to have a page for a Shakespearean character, but many other fictional characters have their own pages. And I agree that there are no secondary sources quoted. But to nominate her on grounds of notability??!!! We'd be better off adding some sources. Speedy Keep and add sources.81.159.209.118 (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps creating a List of Othello characters and MERGING what little is of use in the article into a list would serve, then spinning off stand-alone articles as secondary sources are acquired for individual characters. Incredibly, several minor characters from Othello have separate pages without secondary sources. I think they all belong in one article.ItsLassieTime (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, setting aside for a moment that this is a major character in a Shakespeare play, she is analyzed in many books [1], [2], [3], and a monograph by John Quincy Adams, [4]. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again per Fee Fie Foe Fum. There are tons of RS's, having to argue for notability is absurd. The nomination is astonishing.John Z (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the nomination is not astonishing. As it stands, the article cites no sources whatsoever and is nothing more than a rehash of the plot which is found in the main article. The article and its stand-alone companion articles about Othello characters should be deleted, or merged into a List of Othello characters. There are only a few characters in Othello who need more than 50-75 words written about them and all could be dealt with neatly, concisely in ONE well-written article. For the most part, the stand-alone articles about Othello characters do nothing more than rehash the plot found in the main article Othello -- one article after another. They really don't need stand-alone articles; just one article where all the characters have been gathered together. ItsLassieTime (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep never mind that the nom will respond to this vote with basically a rehash of his nom, ignoring the points everyone else raises. This nomination is ridiculous on its face. JuJube (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This AFD seems to be frivolous or vexatious. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 6 October 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.