- 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 The Closer characters#Main characters. Merge away Spartaz Humbug! 20:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Sharon Raydor
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sharon Raydor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG, no evidence of real world significance (reception, etc.). A few mentions in passing on the web, not seeing anything that goes beyond a fictional bio summary. Her death did generate a bit coverage ( [1], [2]) but it is rather ONEEVENTish, through better than I expected (so I am skipping PROD and taking it straight here, deserves a discussion). As usual, no content would be lost since this is already covered at https://majorcrimesdivision.fandom.com/wiki/Sharon_Raydor Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - All primary sources, fails WP:GNG. TTN ( talk) 17:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Asked to relist to get more comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 14:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Asked to relist to get more comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 14:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep A quick search of Newspapers.com shows several articles about this character, including this from the Edmonton Journal in 2012 [3] and the Boston Globe the same year [4]; this from the Los Angeles Times in 2013 [5]; this from the Minneapolis Star Tribune in 2014 [6]; this from 2017 [7], in a newspaper from Virginia, sourced from Variety - and no doubt there's more, but that is certainly enough to meet WP:GNG. I will try to add these to the article. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 14:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)- Delete - While the character is discussed, it is in reference to the show. There is no real world notability established. Onel5969 TT me 14:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
-
Onel5969, do you mean discussed in the sources in the article, or in the newspaper articles I linked to? Also, could you point me to the requirement in notability guidelines to establish "real world notability" of fictional characters? Is that in addition to meeting
WP:GNG?
RebeccaGreen (
talk)
02:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry it took so long to get back to you, RebeccaGreen. There is no hard and fast rule regarding "real world notability", but when all the discussion about a character is "in-universe", other guidelines, such as WP:NOTPLOT apply. WP:GNG is a guideline, not a policy, although it's a very powerful guideline (imho). I like to think of WP as an encyclopedia, and tend to look at articles on fictional subjects in that light: is this an article or is this a piece of fan fluff. If there is no real world notability then my feeling is that it is fancruft. Onel5969 TT me 15:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
-
Onel5969, do you mean discussed in the sources in the article, or in the newspaper articles I linked to? Also, could you point me to the requirement in notability guidelines to establish "real world notability" of fictional characters? Is that in addition to meeting
WP:GNG?
RebeccaGreen (
talk)
02:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to List_of_The_Closer_characters#Main_characters is consensus is against keeping. ミラ P 19:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Merge to List of The Closer characters. It's WP:ALLPLOT, but deletion is too harsh for a main TV character. Sources can and should be be added there. – sgeureka t• c 09:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I must admit I am disappointed that it seems that no editors have engaged with the sources I referred to. Perhaps no one who has !voted since has access to them, and I know I should WP:AGF, but it does seem as if the responses are to the existing article, rather than to the secondary sources which WP:NEXIST. I do agree that, as written, the current article is totally in-universe. The secondary sources I found from 2012, when the series was about to start, discuss the series creator's decisions in choosing to start a new, spin-off series, rather than have this character be promoted within the old series; the difference between the lead characters in the two series; that the old series was regarded by fans as a one-woman show whereas, before it launched, the creator saw the new series as more of a group view of the justice system with a captain who insists on her detectives following the rules, unlike in the old series, and so on. One of the 2012 articles makes the point that the new captain is good at making deals with suspects, avoiding the cost of trials. This article goes into quite a bit of details about her making deals, but doesn't mention critics' perception that this was to save money. As I said above, in my opinion, there is enough secondary coverage of this character (from subsequent years too) for her to meet WP:GNG, but if no one else agrees, I don't want to waste time editing a fictional character's article when there are so many articles about real people that need improving. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 13:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SPINOUT have existed for way longer than 2012. Per WP:WAF and MOS:TV, the logical order for article creation on TV characters is or should be: (1) cover the characters in the show's main article, and if that gets too large, (2) create a list of characters, and if that gets too large, (3) create a stand-alone article for specific characters. Findings sources at AfD is all nice (really!), but it doesn't fix the article. In its current state, nothing would be lost to wikipedia if this article was deleted, because plot is unimportant in itself; it's only there to give context for the present conception/design/reception real-world info (of which there is 0% in this article). – sgeureka t• c 13:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- I feel like I am commenting at cross purposes to everyone else here, and we are completely misunderstanding each other. I am completely bamboozled by the comment that "
WP:NOT#PLOT and
WP:SPINOUT have existed for way longer than 2012." - what does that have to do with establishing the notability of this character? However, as I have already said, though it would certainly be possible to improve the article, I don't want to waste any more time on a not-very-important fictional character, and I am striking my vote above, as I can't see the point. I apologise to
Tone for asking them to relist when they closed the discussion while I was commenting - it would have been simpler just to forget about it.
RebeccaGreen (
talk)
14:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- @ RebeccaGreen: In answer to your legitimate question: Most people would argue that there is no use in a character article that passes WP:GNG but is only three lines long (which this one would be if the unnecessary PLOT was removed). It makes more sense to WP:TNT-delete it or cover the character in a parent article until it passes as a WP:SPINOUT without violating PLOT. – sgeureka t• c 14:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- I feel like I am commenting at cross purposes to everyone else here, and we are completely misunderstanding each other. I am completely bamboozled by the comment that "
WP:NOT#PLOT and
WP:SPINOUT have existed for way longer than 2012." - what does that have to do with establishing the notability of this character? However, as I have already said, though it would certainly be possible to improve the article, I don't want to waste any more time on a not-very-important fictional character, and I am striking my vote above, as I can't see the point. I apologise to
Tone for asking them to relist when they closed the discussion while I was commenting - it would have been simpler just to forget about it.
RebeccaGreen (
talk)
14:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 The Closer characters#Main characters. Merge away Spartaz Humbug! 20:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Sharon Raydor
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sharon Raydor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG, no evidence of real world significance (reception, etc.). A few mentions in passing on the web, not seeing anything that goes beyond a fictional bio summary. Her death did generate a bit coverage ( [1], [2]) but it is rather ONEEVENTish, through better than I expected (so I am skipping PROD and taking it straight here, deserves a discussion). As usual, no content would be lost since this is already covered at https://majorcrimesdivision.fandom.com/wiki/Sharon_Raydor Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - All primary sources, fails WP:GNG. TTN ( talk) 17:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Asked to relist to get more comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 14:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Asked to relist to get more comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 14:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep A quick search of Newspapers.com shows several articles about this character, including this from the Edmonton Journal in 2012 [3] and the Boston Globe the same year [4]; this from the Los Angeles Times in 2013 [5]; this from the Minneapolis Star Tribune in 2014 [6]; this from 2017 [7], in a newspaper from Virginia, sourced from Variety - and no doubt there's more, but that is certainly enough to meet WP:GNG. I will try to add these to the article. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 14:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)- Delete - While the character is discussed, it is in reference to the show. There is no real world notability established. Onel5969 TT me 14:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
-
Onel5969, do you mean discussed in the sources in the article, or in the newspaper articles I linked to? Also, could you point me to the requirement in notability guidelines to establish "real world notability" of fictional characters? Is that in addition to meeting
WP:GNG?
RebeccaGreen (
talk)
02:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry it took so long to get back to you, RebeccaGreen. There is no hard and fast rule regarding "real world notability", but when all the discussion about a character is "in-universe", other guidelines, such as WP:NOTPLOT apply. WP:GNG is a guideline, not a policy, although it's a very powerful guideline (imho). I like to think of WP as an encyclopedia, and tend to look at articles on fictional subjects in that light: is this an article or is this a piece of fan fluff. If there is no real world notability then my feeling is that it is fancruft. Onel5969 TT me 15:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
-
Onel5969, do you mean discussed in the sources in the article, or in the newspaper articles I linked to? Also, could you point me to the requirement in notability guidelines to establish "real world notability" of fictional characters? Is that in addition to meeting
WP:GNG?
RebeccaGreen (
talk)
02:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to List_of_The_Closer_characters#Main_characters is consensus is against keeping. ミラ P 19:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Merge to List of The Closer characters. It's WP:ALLPLOT, but deletion is too harsh for a main TV character. Sources can and should be be added there. – sgeureka t• c 09:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I must admit I am disappointed that it seems that no editors have engaged with the sources I referred to. Perhaps no one who has !voted since has access to them, and I know I should WP:AGF, but it does seem as if the responses are to the existing article, rather than to the secondary sources which WP:NEXIST. I do agree that, as written, the current article is totally in-universe. The secondary sources I found from 2012, when the series was about to start, discuss the series creator's decisions in choosing to start a new, spin-off series, rather than have this character be promoted within the old series; the difference between the lead characters in the two series; that the old series was regarded by fans as a one-woman show whereas, before it launched, the creator saw the new series as more of a group view of the justice system with a captain who insists on her detectives following the rules, unlike in the old series, and so on. One of the 2012 articles makes the point that the new captain is good at making deals with suspects, avoiding the cost of trials. This article goes into quite a bit of details about her making deals, but doesn't mention critics' perception that this was to save money. As I said above, in my opinion, there is enough secondary coverage of this character (from subsequent years too) for her to meet WP:GNG, but if no one else agrees, I don't want to waste time editing a fictional character's article when there are so many articles about real people that need improving. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 13:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SPINOUT have existed for way longer than 2012. Per WP:WAF and MOS:TV, the logical order for article creation on TV characters is or should be: (1) cover the characters in the show's main article, and if that gets too large, (2) create a list of characters, and if that gets too large, (3) create a stand-alone article for specific characters. Findings sources at AfD is all nice (really!), but it doesn't fix the article. In its current state, nothing would be lost to wikipedia if this article was deleted, because plot is unimportant in itself; it's only there to give context for the present conception/design/reception real-world info (of which there is 0% in this article). – sgeureka t• c 13:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- I feel like I am commenting at cross purposes to everyone else here, and we are completely misunderstanding each other. I am completely bamboozled by the comment that "
WP:NOT#PLOT and
WP:SPINOUT have existed for way longer than 2012." - what does that have to do with establishing the notability of this character? However, as I have already said, though it would certainly be possible to improve the article, I don't want to waste any more time on a not-very-important fictional character, and I am striking my vote above, as I can't see the point. I apologise to
Tone for asking them to relist when they closed the discussion while I was commenting - it would have been simpler just to forget about it.
RebeccaGreen (
talk)
14:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- @ RebeccaGreen: In answer to your legitimate question: Most people would argue that there is no use in a character article that passes WP:GNG but is only three lines long (which this one would be if the unnecessary PLOT was removed). It makes more sense to WP:TNT-delete it or cover the character in a parent article until it passes as a WP:SPINOUT without violating PLOT. – sgeureka t• c 14:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- I feel like I am commenting at cross purposes to everyone else here, and we are completely misunderstanding each other. I am completely bamboozled by the comment that "
WP:NOT#PLOT and
WP:SPINOUT have existed for way longer than 2012." - what does that have to do with establishing the notability of this character? However, as I have already said, though it would certainly be possible to improve the article, I don't want to waste any more time on a not-very-important fictional character, and I am striking my vote above, as I can't see the point. I apologise to
Tone for asking them to relist when they closed the discussion while I was commenting - it would have been simpler just to forget about it.
RebeccaGreen (
talk)
14:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- 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.