Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kay Adams-Corleone (2nd nomination)

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- quick-close per WP:SNOW‎. (non-admin closure) e.ux 11:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Adams-Corleone

AfDs for this article:

[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)

In the wake of Diane Keaton's death, an editor has proposed to erase one of her most prominent roles, based on a consensus to delete a previous less well-sourced version of the article. I therefore bring the current version to AfD for discussion. However, I can not see a justification for deleting substantial sourced content on perhaps the most significant "mafia wife" in fiction and literature. BD2412 T 14:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Popular culture. BD2412 T 14:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, to maintain substantial well-sourced content ~~and avoid the appearance of institutional misogyny on the part of the encyclopedia, given the existence of articles on Vito Corleone, Michael Corleone, Tom Hagen, etc.~~ BD2412 T 14:15, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Irrespective of the merits of this article on its own, saying that it should be kept to avoid the appearance of institutional misogyny on the part of the encyclopedia, given the existence of articles on Vito Corleone, Michael Corleone, Tom Hagen, etc. seems a particularly weak argument that runs counter both to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS—not to mention that the solution could on the contrary be not to have stand-alone articles for those characters (even just a quick look at the Tom Hagen article reveals that it is in a pretty sorry state). TompaDompa (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - @TompaDompa: Institutional misogyny is reflexive, not considered, so its effects do have to be considered. I will grant that Tom Hagan is the least of those. Why don't you try nominating Vito Corleone or Michael Corleone for deletion first? If those are deleted, I will certainly withdraw that plank of my objection to the exclusion of this article. BD2412 T 14:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:Systemic bias is a problem, but that sounds like doubling down on WP:Righting great wrongs to me. You also jump more-or-less immediately to what I would characterize as a somewhat combative stance (Why don't you try [...]), which is not necessary—I'm not arguing against keeping this article. My point was mainly that the (to me, at least) obviously-bad argument that the article should be kept because other articles exist detracts from, rather than bolsters, the presumably-good argument about the sources and content of this article. It almost comes off as a tacit admission that this article shouldn't be kept if considered only on its own merits, which I don't think was your intention. It all feels more than a little bit counter-productive, because at face value the sources cited in the article seem like they should be sufficient for your case that a stand-alone article is warranted (though I haven't taken a close enough look at the sources to say for sure). TompaDompa (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - Very well then, I will strike the contested portion of my !vote. BD2412 T 15:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have added reference to another new source, George De Stefano, An Offer We Can't Refuse: The Mafia in the Mind of America, (2024), which contains a solid five pages of analysis of the character both in print and on screen. BD2412 T 14:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NABOBS and the fact that the article meets the WP:GNG. Katzrockso (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shockingly bad-faith and tasteless PROD from ConstantPlancks, whose only interest areas seem to be scandals and deaths. They've had multiple years to bring up their issues with the article, but doing so the day of the actress's death clearly expresses a dislike for the subject and their roles. The role and character easily passes GNG. Nathannah • 📮 16:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that the recent WP:BLAR was poorly considered and poorly timed, I think that was due to the reflexive reference to the previous AfD, and the failure to consider whether new sources had since been developed and added to the article. I don't think that it necessarily reflects a dislike of the subject. BD2412 T 19:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It's reflexive though; I've never taken well in AfD to someone hearing of a death and choosing that exact moment to nominate a related article or the BLP itself. This certainly could have waited a few weeks. Nathannah • 📮 20:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Film. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I note that the BLAR has fits of high activity, with period of minimal to no activity, a pattern of activity previously seen with editors abusing deletion processes. And yes, GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article was previously near-unanimously redirected back in 2022, and was restored in 2024 by the nominator with minimal additions, with the bulk of added content being largely one to two sentence Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTIONS. The sourcing since 2022 has largely only been brief mentions in obituaries for Keaton from what a brief search can tell me, most of which are only listing Adams-Corleone as an iconic role without any additional commentary. The nomination is also shockingly bad faith and accusing the redirector of attempting to "erase" history when their intentions are clearly grounded in notability grounds, not in personal bias. Wikipedia bases its arguments in the strength of sourcing. If an article fails notability, it fails notability, irrespective of anything else.

On my part, I won't vote just yet, but I would suggest an actual source analysis/search for SIGCOV hits. My own search turned up nothing of significant strength and the current keep votes are solely based on principle rather than actual notability and strong sourcing per our guidelines. If there's some good hits out there that I missed I will likely vote keep, but if the article is just going to wind up the same as the redirected 2022 version with some TRIVIALMENTIONS added and nothing more, I see no reason why it should be retained separately. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shit, I missed the entire Significance section when looking this over. That's a mistake on my part, I need to get more sleep. Ignore my comments on "minimal additions", this is quite a significant add compared to the 2022 version.

Looking over the section, does anyone have the text for "The Godfather and Sicily: Power, Honor, Family, and Evil"? It's not in the link but cited extensively, so I'd appreciate being able to actually see what's inside. The Politics Go To The Movies source seems pretty strong at a glance, but beyond that every other source cited in the section is a one sentence mention, or a single sentence mention as an example of The Godfather's negative treatment of women without much further analysis. I think depending on the content of the Sicily source, I'd be willing to lean Keep, since I'm seeing some suggestions this topic is notable, but I'd like to be sure before I finalize my vote. Apologies again for missing this in my initial argument, that's a mistake on my part. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:21, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Thank you for acknowledging the additional work done. You should also look at the source I have just added, George De Stefano, An Offer We Can't Refuse: The Mafia in the Mind of America, (2024). It goes on for five full pages of substantial analysis, enough to substantiate an article from that source alone. BD2412 T 21:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed a remarkably strong source; good find. While I would still appreciate content from the Sicily source, I think I'm pretty comfortable with this being kept given that there definitely is, at the very least, a base to build on for the future in terms of improvement, and I'd say individual notability is pretty soundly met. This is a Keep from me. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a less anachronistic title such as Kay Adams Corleone. I am not convinced that a Mafia wife in the 1940s would hyphenate her maiden and married surnames. Compare [1]: "On that final day, Kay Adams Corleone woke at dawn." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Metropolitan90: There will be a separate move discussion following this deletion discussion. BD2412 T 00:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - And no objection, regardless. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Jclemens: prior to the WP:BLAR precipitating this discussion, an editor had boldly moved the article to Kay Adams (Fictional character) on the argument that she wouldn't have used a double-barreled name at all. I reverted that move for discussion, but that discussion has yet to happen, pending this one. BD2412 T 17:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not Hillary Rodham-Clinton, with the hyphen. But whatever it ends up being, all reasonable variants can live on as redirects. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Twelve years ago we went through the same discussion in regard to Michael Corleone's first wife at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollonia Vitelli-Corleone. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has specific multiple reliable sources significant coverage that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow. No words for this. Passes WP:GNG more times than many other articles! PlainJane91 (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2025 (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.