Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zuzu Bailey
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 It's a Wonderful Life. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Zuzu Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A minor character from It's a Wonderful Life. Yes, the character said a famous quote in the film, but aside from that, has very little real life notability. The entire article is just plot summary, and I'm finding no other sources that would allow this to include anything that shows any independant notability. Of the three sources already presented on the page, one is just an IMDB link, one is about the actress, not the character, and the third doesn't mention the character at all. Searching for other sources brings me nothing that aren't just other plot summaries, cast lists, or very trivial mentions. Per WP:NOTPLOT and WP:NFICT, fictional elements need some sort of indication of real life notability that is not just plot summary, and I have so far been unable to find anything that could help this. Rorshacma (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looking at the GNews search above, there are PPV news items from The Daily Herald of 12-17-2000, The Spectator of 12-1-2006, and The St. Louis Post-Dispatch of 2-9-2001. Beyond those, there's Express.co.uk, New York Times, and Toronto Blade. I'll ping the nom and suggest he withdraw rather than needing to SNOW this in a day or two. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, reading the below comments, it's unfortunate that I appear to need to present more evidence to convince the nominator. Try a book containing the actress' recollections of the character, for instance. There's plenty of similar things listed in Books and Scholar. The revised nomination statement below simply doesn't address the fact that the GNG is met for the character, which is all that's required. Jclemens (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, that's a cookbook that the actresse wrote, using the character's name to market it. That's hardly any type of notable discussion about the character itself. As I said below, there are plenty of hits if you search the name, its just that all the reliable sources that are not merely plot summaries or quotation guides talk primarily about the character only in terms of what it meant to the actress and her life, and gives no real in depth discussion of the character itself aside from stating that she was a character in a beloved film, and that the actress that played her is known for it. Again, my issue is that all of this is stuff that, while relevent to the already existing article on the actress, does nothing to give any in depth discussion of the character herself. None of the sources that either I've found on my own or that you've brought up here would be able to really add anything to the article that wouldn't be better covered at Karolyn Grimes own page or the film's main page. The way it stands now, all that the sources we've found would allow for is for the article to consist only of plot summary, and then discussion about the actress' life after the role, which would be duplicative of what should be at her own article. And per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, there's no real reason to keep this as its own article when all the information in it is better covered elsewhere. In all seriousness, the character appeared in aproximately 6 minutes of a 130 minute long film. It takes some sources that demonstrate some real world importance and discussion to show why such a minor character meets the GNG and is notable enough to maintain an article seperate from the main It's a Wonderful Life page, and nothing we've found thus far demonstrates any information that is independently notable enough to not just be covered at either that page or Karolyn Grimes.Rorshacma (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I suppose I should have mentioned this in my nomination. I saw the articles you bring up in my initial search, however, I believe they are more about the actress who portrayed her, rather than the character, and we already have an article on the actress here: Karolyn Grimes. I felt those sources, which largely discuss the life of the actress since her role and the impact that role had on her life specifically, would certainly be appropriate to add to her own article to beef up its content, but did nothing to actually show why the actual character was notable. In short, I guess what I'm trying to say is that even though the actress may have become notable for playing the character, that does not automatically mean that the character has any notability of her own independent of the film that she comes from.
- To go into a little more specific detail, since I have the time, the Express article doesn't talk about the character at all, aside from just stating that Karolyn Grimes played her. The rest of the article is largely composed of just the actress' recollections and opinions of the film, with no real relevent discussion of the character. The Toledo Blade article is largely just about the actress, rather than the character, discussing her life since the film. While it does discuss the impact the role has had on the life of the actress herself, and the fans she has because of it, that seems largely more appropriate for the actress' article. There is really no information that we could pull from this that could be included in this article, aside from just saying "The actress that portrayed Zuzu has become well known from the role and has used this role to market products and appearances", which, again, would be great to talk about in her own article, but is not really any sort of real world analysis of the character herself. The Times article is much of the same, where it talks about the actress' life and how the role affected her, but does not really go into any in depth discussion of the character herself outside of plot summary. The article even notes that the character herself was rather minor in the film, appearing in only 6 minutes of it. I can't say for certain about those articles hidden behind pay walls, but the little blurbs that are visible indicate that they are more of the same. So, basicaly, these articles establish notability for the actress, but not so much for the character, as they are not about the fictional element as much as they are about the person who portrayed it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To post a rebuttal, since at least one editor below seems to think that getting the last word matters: None of that matters. The role has received non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, so the GNG is met. The above arguments fail to address the fact that there are plenty of other potential sources, and I've just referenced a couple. Jclemens (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my argument is not that sources that mention the character's name don't exist, its that these sources do not reveal any relevent information about the character itself, rather than of the actress. And don't get me wrong, the soruces you found were great sources for the actress' article, and I added them to that article already. They just did not actually contain anything that could improve this article. And not to sound contrary or anything, but how exactly would one argue against "plenty of other potential sources" without specific examples? Would I have to go through and describe why every ghit that includes the character's name isn't a valid source? Because that's a rather tall order... You have to watch the film to put this in perspecive, but Zuzu was a minor character in the film. An extremely minor character. A character so minor to the point that she could have been removed from the script, and the plot of the movie would not have changed, aside from being a couple minutes shorter. The actress suddenly garnering news coverage because she suddenly begins a campaign to market herself with that role after a financial crisis (which is what the case behind the sudden glut of newspaper articles your found) makes an argument for her being notable, but notability is not inherited, and there really does not seem to be any real world analysis or discussion of the actual character in any meaningful way.Rorshacma (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct thing to do when presented with three independent reliable sources, in my opinion and as I advised on your talk page last week, is to withdraw the nomination. Your demands of those sources are inappropriately high--the character is a fairly minor one, with one quite memorable line, in an incredibly influential movie. Given NOTPAPER, it's perfectly OK to have an article on a notable fictional character that can't ever be made into an FA--not every article can, nor does every article that cannot be need to be merged. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I explained above why I do not agree that the sources you provided meet the requirements for the character's notability, thus why I am choosing to let a consensus occur rather than withdrawing the nomination, so I'll just leave it at that. If consensus agrees that you are right, I will happily abide by the decision, but I personally disagree strongly enough to refrain from withdrawing. And WP:AVOIDSPLIT is my rationale as to why this article is an unnecessary split. Even if the sources are deemed useful, they are not enough to actually build an article on that would be substantially different than information already present on more fleshed out pages, and neither of those pages are so long as to make this split necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct thing to do when presented with three independent reliable sources, in my opinion and as I advised on your talk page last week, is to withdraw the nomination. Your demands of those sources are inappropriately high--the character is a fairly minor one, with one quite memorable line, in an incredibly influential movie. Given NOTPAPER, it's perfectly OK to have an article on a notable fictional character that can't ever be made into an FA--not every article can, nor does every article that cannot be need to be merged. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my argument is not that sources that mention the character's name don't exist, its that these sources do not reveal any relevent information about the character itself, rather than of the actress. And don't get me wrong, the soruces you found were great sources for the actress' article, and I added them to that article already. They just did not actually contain anything that could improve this article. And not to sound contrary or anything, but how exactly would one argue against "plenty of other potential sources" without specific examples? Would I have to go through and describe why every ghit that includes the character's name isn't a valid source? Because that's a rather tall order... You have to watch the film to put this in perspecive, but Zuzu was a minor character in the film. An extremely minor character. A character so minor to the point that she could have been removed from the script, and the plot of the movie would not have changed, aside from being a couple minutes shorter. The actress suddenly garnering news coverage because she suddenly begins a campaign to market herself with that role after a financial crisis (which is what the case behind the sudden glut of newspaper articles your found) makes an argument for her being notable, but notability is not inherited, and there really does not seem to be any real world analysis or discussion of the actual character in any meaningful way.Rorshacma (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To post a rebuttal, since at least one editor below seems to think that getting the last word matters: None of that matters. The role has received non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, so the GNG is met. The above arguments fail to address the fact that there are plenty of other potential sources, and I've just referenced a couple. Jclemens (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To go into a little more specific detail, since I have the time, the Express article doesn't talk about the character at all, aside from just stating that Karolyn Grimes played her. The rest of the article is largely composed of just the actress' recollections and opinions of the film, with no real relevent discussion of the character. The Toledo Blade article is largely just about the actress, rather than the character, discussing her life since the film. While it does discuss the impact the role has had on the life of the actress herself, and the fans she has because of it, that seems largely more appropriate for the actress' article. There is really no information that we could pull from this that could be included in this article, aside from just saying "The actress that portrayed Zuzu has become well known from the role and has used this role to market products and appearances", which, again, would be great to talk about in her own article, but is not really any sort of real world analysis of the character herself. The Times article is much of the same, where it talks about the actress' life and how the role affected her, but does not really go into any in depth discussion of the character herself outside of plot summary. The article even notes that the character herself was rather minor in the film, appearing in only 6 minutes of it. I can't say for certain about those articles hidden behind pay walls, but the little blurbs that are visible indicate that they are more of the same. So, basicaly, these articles establish notability for the actress, but not so much for the character, as they are not about the fictional element as much as they are about the person who portrayed it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being significant (more than a trivial mention) and about the article's topic are still WP:GNG criteria. If that's inappropriately high, then WP:GNG should be changed. Or this article deleted.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Rorshacma made a good job of proving us that GNG is not met and likely never will be. As per the nominator's answers to source propositions, Jclemens' comments are invalidated.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per nomination. WP:AVOIDSPLIT Not enough here (and doesn't seem to be possibility of enough) to have separate article on This CHARACTER.--VikÞor | Talk 02:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to It's a Wonderful Life - there is insufficient coverage about the character (as opposed to the actress who portayed her) tio justify a stand-alone article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to It's a Wonderful Life: The character generates quite some hits on Google, but nothing that comes close to significant coverage. So WP:GNG seems quite far out of reach. -- BenTels (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: not a notable spinout. As per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, we shouldn't create new articles on the same subject unless we can (at a minimum) WP:verify notability. No objection to creating a redirect afterwards. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2012 (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.