Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nastasya Filipovna

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nastasya Filipovna[edit]

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

Apart from the first and second sentences (the latter unsourced), it's all plot from the novel. Prince Myshkin has a little more substance/analysis, but not much. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This may or may not be a particularly good article, but the character has received a huge amount of scholarly attention, as might be expected of a major Dostoevsky character. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Until such time as somebody does actually add something substantial, very little would be lost by redirecting to the novel. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the novel for now at least. The article can always be recreated again if somebody has more substantial material to add to it (Dostoyevsky does attract a lot of scholar analysis and attention), but it may be better to redirect for the time being. Aoba47 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my vote as more work/expansion has been done to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given recent expansion. Aoba47 (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is a bit pointless in its current state, but I am planning to make some changes and additions over the next few days to make it more substantial. Harold the Sheep (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Harold the Sheep: Good idea, and good luck with your revisions and expansions of the article! Aoba47 (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major character in major literary work. Don't confuse poor content with low notability. Montanabw^(talk) 20:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent improvements; sufficient RS to sustain a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. It's a completely different article now. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2016 (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.