Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Hendrix

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 merge to List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters. MBisanz talk 04:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Hendrix

edit
Rebecca Hendrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Extremely unnotable minor fictional character from Law & Order SVU; appeared in maybe five episodes. Fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. Too minor for mentioning in character list; only needs listening in episode lists, which is already there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Enough information about the character to fill an article.
  2. If you aren't interested in the article, you aren't likely to ever find it, unless you are specifically looking for things to delete(a rather horrible hobby to have).
  3. There is no shortage of space on wikipedia, so no reason to delete something just because you don't like it. Some people will find the information interesting to read.
  4. The notability guidelines are suggestions, not policy. You don't have to follow them, and shouldn't just use them as an excuse to delete something you don't like, for whatever reason.

Dream Focus 19:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is policy to delete something that doesn't fit in with the notability guidelines. See WP:DEL#REASON. Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to...Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. Nobody said anything about not liking this material. We're just trying to build a better encyclopedia, and that includes enforcing our standards. ThemFromSpace 20:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reason to delete, not a rule saying you have to delete. Just a reason to nominate something for deletion, or consider it for deletion. It all goes down to consensus, which means the opinions of whoever is around at the time to post their opinions. And you are trying to build what you consider a better encyclopedia, not what many people would consider better. Since there has never been an actual vote by wikipedia users, no one can say what most people would prefer it to become. Dream Focus 20:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think consensus is clear here that while they arent perfect, the notability guidelines are the best tool for the job of keeping Wikipedia a discriminate encyclopedia. I refer you to the recent RfCs on notability. ThemFromSpace 20:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge about one or two paragraphs of this. There needs to be enough to identify her role, not tell the whole plot of each episode she was engaged in.,complete with detailed lines of dialog. Her role is not that important that it mattes exactly what she said to whom The problem is not a question of keep or delete. The problem is how much content is appropriate on a topic,with the secondary problem of where to put it. This content is too much. The GNG notability guidelines are useless for fiction characters, because they only deal with what is worth a separate article, which is not the problem here or in most fiction questions at AfD. This much would be wrong as a separate article or merged, & it doesnt make the least real difference which, it's a content question. Not having something would be equally wrong, In a sense, that's an afd question: since merge is considered a form of keep, the only justification for delete is if you think there should be no mention of her at all in Wikipedia. If there should, it would be a merge or a redirect, but not a delete. Does the nominator actually think there should be no mention? DGG (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the nominator does. 5 episodes out over over 200 is not worth mentioning in neither the main article nor the character list. Her appearances area already properly mentioned in the specific episode summaries. Nothing else to say. And no, deletion does not mean there should be no mention at all, it means she does not need her own article nor does her article need to be redirected anywhere. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect, as long as this article isn't kept. Violates WP:NOT#PLOT, the Reception section is extremely trivial, and there is nothing to merge (except excessive plot, where trimming needs longer than coming up with five original sentences to describe her plot arc). – sgeureka t•c 10:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as subject is verifiable through multiple reliable sources as confirmed on Google News. Moreover, the subject is notable as she appears in five episodes in an award-winning television show on a major network (NBC) that has even appeared in the top 20 ratings lists for the week as confirmed in Entertainment Weekly. The character is played by an actress who is notable enough to have her own article as well. The article passes WP:NOT#PLOT by containing out of universe information including the name of the actress portraying the character and a section on critical reception that can be expanded further by use of the above cited Google News sources. Now alternately, we can merge the article as is being discussed elsewhere and as the nominator did without any discussion for several other characters for this show per WP:PRESERVE. This memorable (yes, I watch this show...) recurring character has appeared in several episodes across three seasons. Few characters have had so many appearances and few characters from this show are covered at all in multiple reviews/previews. We are not discussing some one-off weekly villain after all. As such, merging a sentence or two to a character list with a section of recurring characters would not only be harmless, but be a fair and reasonable compromise given that this article is neither a hoax, copy vio, nor libel. Rather it is something created in good faith and edited by multiple edited and viewed by hundreds more every month. If as indicated above, there are arguably more notable people with this name, then that is a call for a disambiguation page or a rewrite that focuses on whoever is most significant with this name, but not a call to redlink. If as the nominator suggests the subject is at least worst covering in the individual episode articles, then that two suggests there may be mergeable content or a reason to redirect, because obviously far more editors than who have commented in this AfD and far more readers as well find value in typing in "Rebecca Hendrix". As such, we should at least maintain a redirect to the series page, the list of characters, an episode page, etc., i.e. there are other more valid options to be considered per WP:BEFORE. It probably would have been best to have had the merge discussion first as well. Now, granted I find this article interesting and useful and believe it has room for expansion and as such should be kept and yeah per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world); however, I am willing to acede to a reasonable compromise that allows for a redirect with edit history intact. We should be able to meet at middle ground now, i.e. okay, some don't want separate articles, others don't want the content totally lost. It's a win-win for all of us to just in such instances meet at a half way point and we should be willing to do so to avoid perpetuating animosity in these fiction AfDs. And I think if we view that as the basis for a compromise, then we have a means to move forward. Now obviously not all fictional character articles should even be redirected and I'll agree in such cases as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Cunningham_(Tony_&_Friends) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy the jellyfish, but in this case we have List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters, which is an obvious redirect ___location. We know people want to look for information on the character, some of us don't think we should have a separate article, but seriously, there's no real reason why not to redirect to the character list per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. And we should keep the edit history intact should anyone decide to make use of those pay-per-view Google News hits (having a basis to improve upon is a big help rather than starting over) and should this recurring character continue to have additional appearances that cause more sources (after all, the show is still running strong). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be cut down by 1/2 and ideally 2/3 if editors will read it. Remember Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read Ikip (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way that much information can be copied over. They'll just widdle it down to a paragraph or less, and the rest of the information will be lost. Does anyone believe its possible to copy over ALL of the information to another article? Dream Focus 10:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do Secret account 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the Google News hits that have been repeatedly mentioned here. I checked them - of the 9 hits, most are vague references to the character in plot summaries of episodes; two simply mention the character name when discussing the actress (and one of those is a press release). There is no real-world information about the character. I'm not seeing any hint of notability whatsoever. Karanacs (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you didn't find more information, because when you try different search combinations like "Mary Stuart Masterson" and "Law & Order" you get even more results that provide real world information about this obviously notable character, which is why the article has sections on development and reception and with a little effort can expand these sections further. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the pretty much the same sources I saw. They do not provide significant real-world coverage of the character beyond a plot description. The rest belongs more properly in the article on the actress (that she is "best known" for this role) or is trivia. Karanacs (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They do provide significant real-world coverage of the character beyond a plot description, which is why the article has sections on development and reception. But anyway, saying it should be covered elsewhere is a reason to merge and redirect, but not to redlink. And given that an effort is being undertaken to construct character and episode lists for the series in general, the wisest move would be to lave the edit history available for these potential merge efforts. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those sections are each one sentence long and likely cannot be expanded any further. That does not equal "significant" coverage by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever. For "significant" coverage, there must be an actual discussion of the character beyond a plot summary or a mention in passing. Karanacs (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are significant enough for our purposes, because they go beyond plot summary to comment on the character. I only used the sources that were not PPV and subscription based. Most are the pay ones and as such there is a very good chance the article can indeed be expanded further, but even then, there is still absolutely no valid reason why we would not merge and redirect in the extreme worse case scenario as we have something to gain from doing that whereas redlinking actually causes us to lose something. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the pay sites; nothing useful there. Please see the WP:GNG definition of significant. That is the sense in which I am using the word and does not appear to be the way you are. I believe that what you have found is essentially trivial (the role is mentioned in passing). Karanacs (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then WP:IAR as deleting the article hinders our efforts to imporve Wikipedia as we need this article for the merger efforts with regards to the list of characters and episode articles. The article actually passes the WP:GNG because it is multiple mentions in multiple reliable sources and by simple common sense logic, i.e. played by a major actress in a major show across three seasons. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, a major actress in a brief guest role in five episodes out over over 200 (and seriously, most of the time she only appeared for 2-5 minutes with a minor handful of lines). Deleting this does not hinder any merger efforts as it doesn't belong in the character list either, and is already covered in the episode list so nothing to merge. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, a major actress in a major recurring role that caught the attention of reviewers in multiple news sources. Deleting this accomplishes nothing of value and no, she is not already covered adequately in the episode and character lists, which is why we can merge from here, but in any event, we absolutely don't redlink articles that have a valid redirect ___location. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment: There's no denying that since nomination, the article has expanded to include out of universe sections cited in reliable sources. Now, despite the bold text above, we have calls to merge the newly sourced information to Mary Stuart Masterson per [1], to redirect to somewhere per [2], to mention in the episode list per [3], etc. Now per Wikipedia:Merge and delete, we cannot delete the edit history to decide on where best to merge and redirect to and in fact, it actually looks like we have several possibilities here. It is clear that there is no consensus for outright deletion as again half of the bolded deletes seem okay with redirecting and even merging and the ones that just say "entirely plot summary" are no longer accurate given the improvements. So, instead of needlessly escalating tensions, let's all just compromise on the middle ground and decide how best to merge and redirect. No need letting this discussion turn ugly as that way we all gain something. Those who don't want a separate article, we won't have one. Those who want it used somehow per [{WP:PRESERVE]] have that as well. We can merge the sourced information to the actress article per the above suggestion, see what we can do with the episode list and character list in the talk page merge discussions for which there's no rush. We should be able to see that we have a benefit from compromising here and that it should make everyone happy. After all, our goals are not to "win" arguments, but rather to do what's best for the project and milking this article for what we can should be a fair and reasonable way to satisfy everyone. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability problem seems to have been resolved per Schmidt's entry. A general reminder to all: AFD is not a vote, off-hand remarks without anything but copypasta one liners should be ignored by the closing admin. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2009 (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_Hendrix&oldid=1138287212"