Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blanchefleur

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. A lot of work has gone into this article since it was nominated for an AFD and it looks like the current consensus is to Keep it. Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchefleur[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Blanchefleur (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)

PROD removed. This name fails WP:NNAME, WP:GNG due to lack of reliable sources and WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NOTDICT. All of the people listed are fictional characters, none of which seem notable enough to warrant their own articles. It also seems like this article was created in an apparent act of vandalism, then converted to an article about an unnotable fictional character, then converted to roughly what it is now, rather than just deleted in the first place. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unreferenced violation of WP:IPC and possibly WP:OR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, unreferenced is one thing, but there's others. First of all, User:Cuchullain had a hand in this, and that's a good sign. Second, "popular culture"--sure, romance was a popular genre, but that shouldn't be used as a putdown. The Aeneid was popular too, and the bible was, or "what does Ingeld have to do with Christ" wouldn't have been a very good argument. (It's not, but for a different reason.) Third, all the ones listed are featured in highly notable texts/cycles/etc., and they are not unimportant characters. Keep, obviously. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies Hmmm, take a look at my reply above. Right now I feel this is a badly messed up name page in need of WP:TNT. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Piotrus, I did. It is very disappointing. A bad compilation--well. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          If you find the article disappointign and a bad compilation, why are you voting keep? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think they may have been referring to your response, not the article. Anyway, I completely understand Piotrus' concerns, but it doubles as a symbol as Drmies explains, and I believe there may be enough coverage and study of the name in that aspect to keep the article. It is clearly the subject of several nontrivial essays. I do believe that the 'Blanchefleur in the Grail' section falls into the purview of Potrius' concerns, though I do not advocate for its removal. I believe I may gravitate slightly more towards Drmies' point of view, but I will let the community decide the fate of the article. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Drmies. Even if it is not kept, at the very least it could be converted into a DAB page, but Drmies's work shows that that should not be necessary. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's clearly a name page, so I don't think it would be right to turn it into a DAB, but Drmies' sources may merit notability anyway. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what it is, actually. I guess it's a page on a name with a bunch of links to their occurrences. I have secondary sourcing (OK, one tertiary one) for all but one of em now; it's a work in progress. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure if you're familiar with name pages or not, but that second sentence pretty adequately describes them. There generally must be at least at least two Wikipedia articles about people with the name for a name to be notable, but not necessarily if there is adequate sourcing. I'd say the sources you have added do seem to have merit, but I guess my primary concern would be that it reads more like a study on the characters rather than on the name itself. I'm feeling fairly neutral towards deletion now, though. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • AllTheUsernamesAreInUse, the thing is that esp. in medieval literature a name is often also a concept. In general, names denote a variety of things, and not every Gawain is the same Gawain. Nor is Mordred always King Arthur's son; sometimes he's his nephew. And particularly with side characters, especially women, they are sometimes also emblems, allegorical or other representations of certain values and ideas, and that's what we have here. That's why I included what you might call character studies: the concept of Blanchefleur (this is how I would write it up for publication) is generally that of a standard beautiful woman in romance--sometimes a "seductress", sometimes an emblem of purity. Readers of romance will sense that these two meanings are not unlike the two gardens we see in medieval literature--the garden of love and the garden of Eden (see Locus amoenus). That's just how it works in this literature, which does things differently from how moderns do it. A name can also be an idea, and conflicting ideas can exist together in ways that we wouldn't think of. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well you clearly know a lot more than me on this topic, so I'll take your word for it, but I'd also like to see you address the comment made by Piotrus above, as that is a better explication of my line of thought. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, User:AllTheUsernamesAreInUse, I don't know, but medieval literature, that's what I used to do for a living. I'm not going to respond to that because, and I'm a bit surprised that this comes from him, it's a loaded question. Plus I don't really have the time or the inclination to explain, at length, that there is a huge difference between the name/concept/idea "Blanchefleur" and the name "Piotr". It's indicative of a fetishization of names in the same way that people fetishize nationality--one draws up rules based on modern ideas and then applies them retroactively. A much more exciting read, more exciting than my rambling about names, is this classic about nations and nationhood. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has substantive content and nearly a dozen references now. In addition, I've found dozens more lengthy descriptions and explications in books about medieval literature. Softlavender (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is plenty of content on the name and its related concept to justify the existence of an article, and sourcing is abundant. LadyofShalott 13:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Drmies has already explained everything I thought I'd have to when I saw this AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blanchefleur&oldid=1209692646"