Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Pope

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 Redirect to List of Grey's Anatomy characters. While only a couple of "votes" explicitly mark this as a first choice, it is the logical outcome when considering the persuasive arguments that she lacks independent notability but also that coverage within the context of the television show is present. Thus, as in many similar cases, "redirect" is the best reading of the debate. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Pope

[edit]
Rebecca Pope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is a fictional guest character on Greys Anatomy really notable enough for their own article? Claims to notability are Reaser earning a nomination for a Primetime Emmy and a Prism Award as a guest actress while playing the role. She gave the sixth most memorable patient performance on Greys Anatomy, which I guess counts for something. AIRcorn (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 12 says nothing about Pope. Neither does ref 13 really, it calls her a Jane Doe and is a just paragraph mention in a Season review. Entertainment weekly is listing the fifteen most memorable cases in Greys Anatomy (Popes case is number 6) and consists of two sentences. AIRcorn (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In short, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The TV show had her as a recurring star for two seasons and was the highlight of the season 4 finale. Unless you know the show well, you really can't say the page is of no significance as it's a major part of the plot. Yes, in storylines I used "cite episode"; what else do you use? You don't even need refs in storylines. Reception is all referenced and she is known as the 6th most memorable guest star. She's important to the show; just as important as all the other pages in the Grey's Anatomy scope. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see any "significant coverage" in WP:RS, so this clearly fails the WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The article only has four secondary sources (and only one focuses on the actual character!- even then she's in a list, and is briefly mentioned). Based on these (mainly poor) sources, I don't see any indications of notability. I don't see anything that couldn't be merged into the Grey's Anatomy character list (the article has no development section anyway, and the reception section is terribly short, probably because there's not much out there to cite). As for Denny Duquette, I would cite WP:OSE.Ruby 2010/2013 17:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tough call but it doesn't really make much sense to delete such a well-written article. It's even nommed for GA, character seems notable enough considering the actress was nominated for an Emmy for her portrayal. This is potentially one more high-quality article on the 'pedia, so there's my vote. Aranea Mortem (talk to me) 01:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well written? The plot section alone gave me a headache: "They develop a close bond and spend much time together leading to Addison asking Alex if there was another "Denny Duquette incident" in the hospital referring to Izzie Stevens' romantic relationship with previous patient Denny." Ugh... :-/ Ruby 2010/2013 02:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps that sentence is a little awkward, but nothing a small cleanup wouldn't cure. Aranea Mortem (talk to me) 07:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is fixed to no longer sound awkward. TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Her character also got a major part in the Grey's Anatomy Video Game which obviously means she's a significant part of the show IMO. Not only that, but, Elizabeth Reaser was nominated for two awards for her performance as Rebecca, one being an Emmy Award. She was covered through several articles on the internet listed in the reception section. She is not the most major character so the amount of info given in the reception section is fine. Just because articles are not written about her does not mean that she has no significant value. I gave several references to importance in the Reception section. TRLIJC19 (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that this fictional character had been nominated for any awards. The character hasn't received any significant coverage in WP:RS. The actor playing her has been nominated. Do you see the difference? Jezhotwells (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking to pedantry a little here no? The actor portraying this character has received those awards for her part. If you're suggesting they're not linked then I wouldn't know what to say without pointing out something obvious. Aranea Mortem (talk to me) 15:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jezhotwells, unless you are alleging that the actress was nominated for playing herself, then the character shares the notability, as well. ~PescoSo say•we all 22:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are really clutching at straws there. Take a look at the list of Academy Award for Best Actor. Check out how many characters are considered notable enough to have an article. You will find only notable real people or major fictional characters such as Fagin. The fact that an actor is nominated for an award does not confer any notability on the character portrayed. They are nominated because others perceive their acting skills are worthy of note. Any useful content in this article can be merged into the series article as has been suggested by others. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- A character does not have to have 20k articles written on her to be significant. Reaser was nominated for her performance of playing Rebecca. Not a different character. The character is a major part of the Grey's Anatomy storyline.
No, and the GNG doesn't say that or anything like it. Can you point to any significant coverage of this character, as opposed to the actress, in independent reliable sources, at all? Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she was known as EW's 6th best GA appearance. There's more in the reception section. She is a significant character. Just because people aren't writing articles about it doesn't mean there shouldnt be a page for it. There are many pages on Wikipedia that are significant that do not have independent sources. It doesnt mean theyre not important. She was mentioned plenty of times on the internet, as shown is her page. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Just because people aren't writing articles about it doesn't mean there shouldnt be a page for it" -- actually, that is the precise opposite of our policy on verifiability and guidelines on notability, the latter of which state "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article". As to the other articles you mention, I have already referred to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The coverage really consists of three sources, and none of them seem to say much of importance on the character. And Jezhotwells is correct: the character is not the actor. The notability of the one is not the same as the notability of the other. We're not a paper encyclopedia, it's true, and that all too often leads to the creation of articles on every single thing. We could leave a redirect, maybe, but there is nothing worth merging here. BTW, the GA review was put on hold--but even if this is kept, there is no way this qualifies as a GA: it's plot summary sourced to, what, nothing. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know what else you would reference storylines to. Storylines dont even require refs first of all. So referencing episodes is more than needed. Hence storylines. The show is the source. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit, and please don't talk to me like I'm stupid. I've written tons of articles involving plot summaries, and if the shit is notable you can find a source for it. We don't necessarily need to reference all plot summary, but what's the problem here? The article consists of basically nothing but summary. How is this collection of plot lines and a note on an Emmy nomination for the actor going to be a GA? Drmies (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. A bigger case might be made for its notability if the article actually had a development/casting section in addition to an expanded reception section. A quick Google search really turns up nothing reliable however, hence the deficit in these sections and the perceived lack of notability. Ruby 2010/2013 04:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking to you like you're stupid, you are just acting with arrogance. The actress received the award because she portrayed the character so well. And actually, if you look at most articles the "storylines" section is just refs to episodes. And there's no need to curse at my statements. TRLIJC19 (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought a well-chosen expletive might help you hear--I guess I was wrong, so fuck it. Some might think that it's arrogant to nominate a collection of plot summaries for GA; others would call it fool-headed. Oh, telling me that plot summaries this and that, yeah, that is talking to me like I'm stupid: if you have fourteen hundred edits, don't tell me what the rules of the game are here. Have a nice day, Drmies (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it quite comical that you still feel the need to talk to me in this manner. I'm not getting heated over this discussion, you are. I'm just lightly stating my reasoning. I don't know why you think you're so important to Wikipedia. Maybe I don't have as many edits as you, but that means nothing. And if you acted like you knew the rules, maybe I wouldn't have to tell you. TRLIJC19 (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's enough. Everyone, please act on the notice we all see on editing this page, "that commenting on people rather than the article is considered disruptive". Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2011 (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/Rebecca_Pope&oldid=1140115534"