Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Vaughan

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 redirect to The Catch (TV series)#Cast and characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Vaughan

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

Prodded a few weeks ago~~, which was de-prodded with a WP:OSE rationale~~. Current citations are more about the casting of the role, rather than the character. Can't see how this fictional character passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was I who deprodded it, and the nominator has completely misunderstood my rationale. I said "added reference - removed prod tag since plenty more appear to exist". It should have been clear that I meant plenty more references exist, rather than plenty more articles like this one exist. St Anselm (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did indeed misconstrue your context, thinking you were speaking of other articles. My apologies. That being said, I also agree with you that plenty of other references exist, however, from those I researched, they were mostly about the production, the casting, etc. Many of them mention the character and her attributes, but they are not about the character. Again, my apologies for the confusion, will strike the above portion of my comment.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sadly, there is no notability guideline for fictional characters. But the rule of thumb for notability is that the character should receive a level of coverage that is well above average. Articles such as "How to be a great private investigator like Alice Vaughan on 'The Catch'" indicate that the subject has much more coverage than that of the average fictional character. StAnselm (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not correct. The WP:GNG is entirely applicable to fictional characters in any medium. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per StAnselm. The fact that this character has been the subject of an editorial from a major third-party source (ABC News) suggests notability, if just barely. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak delete upon further review. I'm not convinced that this TV character is significant enough to merit her own article, and most of the information pertaining to her can be covered on the show's primary Wikipedia page. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I usually don't comment that much on stuff I've nominated, but StAnselm & Kurtis - you do realize that the ABC piece is a promo for the show, written by ABC Channel 7 for one of its programs? Just saying. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was definitely not aware of that, and thank you for correcting me. In truth, I didn't spend a lot of time reviewing this nomination; being that I've seen StAnselm around, I figured that he would have a keen enough understanding of sourcing for me to trust his judgement without doing additional research. I'm not usually so lazy when it comes to AfD, but I have to confess: I was actually half-asleep at the time, all the while working on something else not pertaining to Wikipedia. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry if I deceived anyone. No - I hadn't made the ABC connection either. But I hadn't really thought the ABC link was worth putting in the article - I was relying more on articles like the New York Times one for notability. St Anselm (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again my apologies, StAnselm, I wasn't insinuating anyone wasn't AGF. I was merely pointing out that sometimes we look at a source and we think it's an article, when in reality it's PR (I know I've done it). The link you provide above is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of the available references on this subject. It's not really about the character, but about the actress, and the role in context of the overall production. These types of articles are common in today's 24/7 news cycle. I agree with you, however, on the need to come up with some sort of guidelines for fictional characters. This site is teeming with them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought it was mostly about the character. (And the interesting thing is that the character changed so dramatically.) I have just added a reference from Screener - again, it is ostensibly about the character more than the actress. St Anselm (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient independent, substantial, RS exist for this fictional character. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per Jclemens. The article is currently in pretty bad shape, but there are plenty of independent, substantial resources out there to improve this in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few sources relating the character (either in terms of the background/development of the character, interview with the actor, or reception of the character/actor's performance as the character):1,2, 3 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. I have found these after doing a quick Google search. I would understand if it is decided that this is not enough to support the character having a separate article from the show, but just wanted to show that I actually did research before putting up my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to redirect to The_Catch_(TV_series)#Cast_and_characters upon further review. There are sources out there for this article (such as the ones that I have provided above), but it is most likely not enough to sustain a separate article, much of the information can be put into the other articles about the show. he subject of this article could certainly gain enough notability in the future to warrant her own page, but for right now it is far too soon to determine that. I believe it would best to use a redirect so other users could possibly make something better of this in the future. And for the record, there are guidelines about notability for fictional characters, as they fall under WP:GNG. Maybe one day, there will be more specific guidelines written for this though. Aoba47 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it because it is of fictional importance. But we do need some guidelines for fictional characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.238.99.2 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the main article. The current state of the article shows no potential, and I honestly doubt the above claims that sources exist. The fact that nothing besides trivial promotional piece is the only "source" provided reinforces that. TTN (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the show. Since the main content of this article is an incomplete plot serving as a hook, there's no need for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to The Catch (TV series). While the character may weakly satisfy the GNG, the article fails to establish any real-world significance, and the content (almost entirely in-universe plot) doesn't justify a standalone article. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth one more relist, I think, as discussion continues to today Black Kite (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:39, 27 December 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.