Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bedelia Du Maurier

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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bedelia Du Maurier[edit]

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

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

Sources in the article are either primary or do not prove the character's notability (awards for the actress does not equal to notability for the person the actress played), a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to Hannibal (TV series)#Cast and characters (perhaps not the best redirect target, but I can only think of that). Spinixster (chat!) 02:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 02:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Here's a few sources from ProQuest, non-exhaustive search. [1][2][3] There seem to be some decent sources in the article as well. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Crawford (character) for my concerns about this set of 8 nominations in 7 minutes) —siro χ o 07:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second source only briefly mentions the character, as with the third source. The first one has a brief analysis of the character in the final scene of season 3. I think more sources would be needed. Spinixster (chat!) 07:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The fact that I'm the original creator of this article however many years ago at this stage bears no merit (I'm sure that those kinds of ill-minded people who would think that for even a second are on here). These blatant series of nominations in SUCH SHORT PERIOD with no real meaty reason is not only highly suspect, it's at its least highly insulting, at worst some sort of ill-gotten agenda. Cartoon Boy talk 21:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The age of the article does not equal to notability (WP:ARTICLEAGE). I do take your word for the series of nominations, that is my mistake, but you are wrong with "no real meaty reason". The reason is notability, and that's why I sent it to AfD in the first place. If you can prove the character is notable with sources, please do so. Spinixster (chat!) 07:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge. The current reception is about the actress, not the character. I am AGFing the source critique above to conclude this fails WP:SIGCOV. Ping me if more sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus I mentioned above it was not an exhaustive search, please take my comments as good faith here, as well. For your edification, here's a few more sources [4][5][6][7]. —siroχo 00:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo Thanks, let me review them... First source I get only snippet views, not seeing SIGCOV analysis there. Second, ditto although one or two snippets suggest there may be something good there. Third source is not in English so I am not qualified to comment on it (machine translation of such snippets is cumbersome). For now I'll stick with my vote, although if someone writes up an analysis or such based on sources found (which at minimum would be good for merging), ping me and I'll review things again (ditto for more sources, but please, ensure they can be read, or better, quote relevant parts here - TIA). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, @Piotrus I think the spirit of WP:NEXIST is important here. We can't really expect to keep up with the pace of AfDs to rewrite articles. Keep in mind, the nominator opened 8 AfDs, and they're not the only ones going (remember the recent work that went into Yoyodyne). I really don't have time within the scope of AfD to add the reception/analysis you're asking for, despite my 100% confidence that this subject meets GNG (as do all 8 of these related subjects). —siro χ o 01:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo Hence my view of redirect/merge (soft deletion preserving history). Such articles that do not meet our criteria right now but show potential can be easily restored later. Now, to be clear, if I saw sufficient source I'd say keep and tag with {{sources exist}} but right now I dont see them (due to verification difficulties). Other that that I think this is right now the case of WP:SEXIST more than WP:NEXIST, since I was not able to verify that good sources exist. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confident the sources I've presented are sufficient for an article, and I hope you can assume good faith on that. From what I can tell, even the general preview and snippet views demonstrates that in some of these (for example the first source has an entire chapter/essay dedicated to this character), though with GBooks we may be seeing different views. Note, however, that there are a various ways to see a bit more. For example, you can do a fresh search for the character name in google books (sometimes you need to be logged out or an a new browser, etc), scroll to the appropriate book, click the result, and be presented with a fuller view.

I hope you'll note from past discussions that when I am doubtful of this fact, I often suggest a merge or redirect. In such cases I always look for a solid bit of SIGCOV involving secondary synthesis/analysis beyond the primary text and if I don't find them I don't recommend keeping.

However, in these cases when the sources are clear, redirecting makes it a lot harder to develop the article over a period of time, as undoing the redirect with only a small addition is often treated as controversial. Another editor might even come along and start the article fresh without realizing sources have been found, and spend time digging up sources when we've already done that.

While I hope you can trust my evaluation a bit more in the future, in the meantime here's some examples from above:
From Kara French's essay in Becoming:
The arc of Bedelia’s story evokes the femme fatale of ﬁlm noir in a way that goes beyond her Veronica Lake hairstyle and chilly deliv-ery. She is the quintessence of the mysterious woman who presents as a victim and is later revealed to be anything but. The character of Bedelia also represents Fuller’s take on familiar horror motifs, such as Carol Clover’s trope of the “Final Girl.” Bedelia is Hannibal ’s Final Girl in a very literal sense—the last image in the show’s ﬁnale, “The Wrath of the Lamb” (3.13), is the postcredits sequence where she is seated alone to feast on her own leg, poised to attack her mys-terious host armed with nothing but a fork.
Bedelia both embodies and subverts these familiar female arche-types. As a camp ﬁgure, Bedelia disrupts the male gaze associated with the femme fatale as well as the male-centeredness of a series focused on Hannibal Lecter and Will Graham. In the postcredits sequence, Bedelia’s status as Final Girl and audience surrogate comes together. The ambiguity of that ﬁnal image invites the audience to engage in meaning making with the text, thus blurring the line between passive observers and active participants in the blood opera Hannibal

From Hannibal for Dinner
Fowler
In "The Number of the Beast is 666.., the penultimate episode of the series, Will asks his psychiatrist Bedelia du Maurier, Hannibal's former lover, about the nature of Hannibal's feelings for him. "Is Hannibal ... in love with me?" the FBI consultant asks hesitantly, to which Bedelia replies, "Could he daily feel a stab of hunger for you, and find nourishment at the very sight of you? Yes. But do you ache for him?" Will's use of the phrase "in love" dispels any notion that the dynamic is purely platonic rather than romantic. This moment not only confirms the nature of Hannibal's feelings for Will, but Bedelia's question and Will's silence in response creates an ellipses that opens up the possibility of this queer longing as reciprocal. Thus, the series appropriates dialogue and moments from Clarice and Hannibal's relationship and reworks them in the show to not only allude to but confirm the romantic nature of Will and Hannibal's relationship.

Gledhill
... in Hannibal this self-reflexive exploration takes the form of psychotherapy on screen; a running commentary on ideas of audiences, consumption, and unreliable per-spective, as psychiatrist Bedelia Du Maurier (Gillian Andersen) and Will Graham debate their roles as victims of, spectators for, or participants in Lecter's murder spree. The "implication" of the audience in the events on screen is heightened by the intertextual references to fan practices off screen. There is complexity in Fuller's active engagement with his fans, with the media that report on cultural trends and review his productions, and with the text itself, though this can be overstated in fan and critical discussions surrounding the show.

—siro χ o 03:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. Certainly the bestowal of awards for the performance of the character is sufficient evidence of a reception consistent with the notability of the character. BD2412 T 04:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable character. Lightburst (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2023 (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.