- 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cindy Vortex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Why should it matter? Some of us like Cindy, others don't. For those who don't, quit looking at the page, and leave us who do alone.
- keep Multiple sources are now present. Just from an obvious search in G Books also. It is reckless to nominate articles as unreferenced -- and actually say they are incapable of improvement -- without checking for references in at least the most common places. I wonder how many of the other nominations for similar articles could have been sourced if the trouble had been taken to source instead of blindly nominate? DGG (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that many in this case. The only thing I found significant sources for after checking most of them was White Base, and I'm not sure how many of those were even on point.--chaser - t 04:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. There are now two sources discussing the character in the context of pop media depictions of girls. What does "current assertion for future improvement" mean?--chaser - t 04:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete I suggest we carefully reread the sources used and ask if they constitute significant coverage of the subject. Fn 1 and 2 are filmography mentions (just linking character to voice actor). fn4 is a work of fiction. Fn5 may or may not be RS, but its only coverage of the subject is to say "Cindy Vortex is also a genius and is always there to point out Jimmy ’s mistakes. Cindy is one of the ‘cool ’ set who teases Jimmy about his wacky inventions." This sentence basically represents the sum total of what fn 3, 6, and 7 have to say about the subject. Cindy is listed among other fictional female characters in 6 and 7 and little is said about her save that she is a genius. Fn 3, a movie review, has only "Cindy Vortex, who's almost as brilliant as he is, leads the loyal opposition" to say. Again, we build articles from sources. We shouldn't create articles and then find sources as an excuse to keep them. It might be possible to dig around and find some coverage for us to build an article out of, but we aren't there yet. Protonk (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - size of parent article suggests having anything rather than a list would make it huge, and as it is a fairly central character of the show I suspect there will be more refs as per the one found plus other similar. I am sure there will be media-related periodicals which have information on individual characters in a show such as this. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. Article is adequately referenced. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 27 October 2008 (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.