Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie (Toy Story) (2nd nomination)

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. This could be closed as either a keep or a merge without much issue. Most of the concern is about the state of the article, including the nom, not the lack of existence of sources. Landing slightly on the keep side of the needle does not preclude a merge should it be possible to cover Jessie within the list, but there is no consensus to delete the material. Star Mississippi 21:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie (Toy Story)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article seems to be a subject of edit warring. I tried to find more reliable sources per WP:BEFORE that mostly talks about Jessie to settle this, but failed. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, Film, and Comics and animation. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there are enough secondary sources discussing Jessie to be notable. This and this paper together seem enough to me to establish the minimum required by WP:GNG. I have seen a number of shorter commentaries. If someone finds it necessary to provide more sources, I can look some more. Daranios (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Toy Story characters#Jessie. Whether potentially notable or not, the current incarnation of the article is heavily lackluster; it should be merged until someone sees fit to make it encyclopedic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current article and its very disappointing reception section do not carry sufficient assertion of stand-alone significance to warrant keeping this per WP:GNG. Regarding the sources found by Daranios, the first one doesn't seem to have a SIGCOV analysis of her, although it may be sufficient to reference a single sentence saying that she has her character, described as not-stereotypical and not-meek, has been acknowledged (but in passing) in a gender-themed analysis of the TS3 movie. Arguably, however, she doesn't even get a dedicated sentence of analysis, since the topic is the relationship between characters (and so the topic of her relation with the male lead is discussed). The second source contains a few sentences or so of analysis, and is better. If User:Daranios would like to add them to the reception section, maybe we could keep this. Otherwhise, we can (soft) redirect this or keep so someone else can improve this... IMHO the notability right now is borderline. One more source and I might be convinced to vote keep (but right now I see one passable source, and one that's borderline, and that's just below my rule of thumb of two sources - note that I consider the current reception useless, as it covers the voice actress reception, not the character). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Bo Peep's article is a good example of the potential of coverage from a gender-themed reading/perspective, and this is all very recent as a result of that character's appearance in Toy Story 4. Which does make me wonder why the same effort hasn't been made for Jessie, a character who has been more prominent throughout the Toy Story franchise's history. I think the real question here isn't whether Jessie is objectively notable, but whether a standalone page about Jessie should exist in mainspace if the coverage of secondary sources is this lacklustre and an entry about the character in List of Toy Story characters adequately covers all salient information about her. 19:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Haleth (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are several articles, magazines, reviews, books, podcasts, and shows discussing the character, and she even gave a CGI-present speech at the Oscars on her own, which could definitely pass Notability Guidelines alone. However, it goes without saying that it definitely needs a major cleanup, and if someone is willing to improve the article, I see absolutely no reason for it to be deleted. Moreover, the character even has won an award, which is also acceptable through Wikipedia’s Notability Guidelines (which was part of her speech at the Oscars). But, a simple and reasonable compromise could be moving this page to the draft space until it is complete. 2603:7081:2501:8692:29AA:F5D6:DEE2:1AED (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of a Fantasy, and I thought you retired already because of this reasonable rant of yours at your userpage. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I retired my account, not my contributions. Don’t bring up irrelevant points like this, it’s hurtful and inconsiderate. --2603:7081:2501:8692:29AA:F5D6:DEE2:1AED (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Strange to insinuate that the main female character of one of the biggest movies ever created is un-notable, while characters like a hammy sea witch, Ursula, get entire articles with no issue. Trillfendi (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But there is hard evidence of significant coverage about Ursula, which demonstrates that the character is culturally relevant among certain segments of human society. I am not seeing anywhere near the same level of discourse about this character. As Wikipedia editors, we should not be solely concerned about the in-universe significance of fictional characters within a piece of media, and especially without secondary sources to back up her significance outside of it. Jessie is not the only main female character in the series, Bo Peep's appearance in Toy Story 4 seems to have generated a flurry of pop culture discourse that is more substantial then Jessie ever had throughout her entire existence. Haleth (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ursula is a culturally significant character, especially in the Disney medium. However, I wouldn't argue that Jessie is less notable than her, probably even equal if you consider the praised reception Jessie has received since her debut. But Ursula has been around for some time and has been regarded as one of the best-animated villains, unlike Jessie, who has been listed as "underrated" in several review articles but still holds a strong reception. But, regardless, both characters have received significant coverage since their respective debuts. 2603:7081:2501:8692:E586:64A0:4D79:85BD (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Look at what the Woody (Toy Story) article used to look like. It wasn’t as bad as this one, but it was pretty dang bad. I worked on the Woody article a lot to get to a GA and almost all the references I searched through when trying to raise Woody to a GA talked about Jessi in them too. I’m most certain that if someone actually put in the work and effort into this article, it could be a GA. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Woody is the main character, and before you started working on the article (great job btw), the reception appeared to be fine already. Meanwhile, Jessie is just a supporting character, if I recall. The article has been neglected for a decade, and has very weak sourcing. Hence, I started nominating this article for AfD. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright well I have updated the the reception section and there are still more refs that can be used. I think this definitely passes WP:GNG ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work right there. I also saw that there are other usable sources on article's talk page to be used. The reception section looks kind of good already. I'll stay neutral on this and will be withdrawing the AFD nomination when merge voters are satisfied with it. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide to withdraw the nomination, you should only do so after you reach a conclusion on your own that this article is salvageable, as opposed to gauging what other editors' potential response would be. Haleth (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively speaking, if you only consider the fourth films and tv series and spin-offs. Jessie, however, is actually a main character, third importance, actually (or tritagonist). Several review articles point this out. 2603:7081:2501:8692:E586:64A0:4D79:85BD (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They reviewed the actual film only, and most of it was passing mention about Jessie and didn't talk about her. Another just notable argument Lord of Fantasy? OnlyFixingProse (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep doing this to me? You can’t even respond to my talk page message, or any message from me to you in general, but yet keep attacking me. Grow up and keep to the relevant discussion or I’m reporting you again. --2603:7081:2501:8692:6497:31A4:42C1:4A98 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zxcvbnm's argument. Two years ago, I have had a look before this current AfD to see if there's any coverage reliable secondary sources, and quite frankly there was barely anything of note. Jessie had a moment of prominence from her debut in Toy Story 2 but basically faded into the franchise's background in the years since. The nominator of the first AfD from way back in 2008 (which ended in no consensus) summed up the article's longstanding problems. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. More then a decade later, that clearly hasn't changed. I am not sure if I agree that this article should be considered for deletion, but unless a dedicated well-informed editor like Kaleeb18 puts in the effort now to actually demonstrate to us that significant coverage specifically about the character does exist, it should be taken out of mainspace and redirected to the list because it does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a standalone page. Haleth (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haleth Kaleeb expanded the reception sec, could you take a second look if its fine already? Not sure if this [1], [2], [3] and other usable sources on the article's talkpage are enough. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed on principle to this article being considered for deletion to begin with, though it is understandable given the context that the page was subject to a brief edit war with one editor recommending that the page is taken to AfD to have the dispute resolved. As I have suggested before, the issue to deliberate on here isn't whether the topic is notable or not, but whether the article (still poorly written and constructed in spite of Kaleeb18's improvements) should continue to remain in mainspace given its ongoing content issues. Haleth (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Per arguments above. Jessie didn't received much attention unlike Woody and Bo peep. 2001:4455:30B:6C00:ADAA:DA9:F85A:604 (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Jessie was a significant and central character in Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3 (even a more present character than Buzz), the protagonist of Toy Story of Terror!, a major character in Toy Story 4, and has appeared in numerous Disney media. She's literally labeled as the tritagonist of the franchise. Bo Peep on the other hand had only one significant appearance, and that was in Toy Story 4. Regardless, she's just as notable as Woody, and more recognizable and significant to the stories than Bo Peep. On the other hand, she literally received an award at the Oscars in 2000 (may I also note that she's currently the only Pixar character to win a non-voice-related award), so I don't know why you think she's not significant. Yes, obviously not as much as Woody, but she's really close, probably even equal to Buzz when you consider her significance in the third film and her spin-offs. 2603:7081:2501:8692:E586:64A0:4D79:85BD (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an Oscar, but an award from the National Cowgirl Museum from the year 2000. I agree that it is a sign of significance. Then again, the nominator's concern is that there aren't enough extent secondary sources which specifically discuss her in enough detail, especially from an out of universe perspective, but it doesn't look like there are any secondary sources which are interested in discussing the issue. Whether Jessie is the franchise's second or third most important main character is irrelevant if we are to consider to whether she should be getting a standalone page split from the main list of characters. Haleth (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my points exactly, actually. Just not gonna repeat everything that’s been said, but I wasn’t saying that it was an Oscar, I was saying that she was presented with the award at the Oscars — just to clarify. --2603:7081:2501:8692:6497:31A4:42C1:4A98 (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion is still factually incorrect. The presentation for Jessie's animated speech for the cowgirl award was at the National Cowgirl Hall of Fame’s Annual Induction Luncheon on November 10th, 2000, not the Academy Awards that year or the following year. Haleth (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I thought she accepted it during the Oscars ceremony? I’ll have to look into that further. After all, the same sequence from the Oscars is used, and she’s wearing her official Oscars Uniform. But, again, I’ll look at an archive recording of the 2000 Oscars to see if this is the case. --Lord of Fantasy (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's one secondary source which at least acknowledges that award, The Animated Movie Guide. In general I agree that we should focus on how much there is in secondary sources rather than compare with other cases. And for my part I am satiesfied with the sourced reception section as a foundation, just as Isabelle has summarized it. Daranios (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources at the reception and legacy section seem to be enough to satisfy WP:GNG and merit its own article (plot could use some trimming, though). Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 12:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs some work but the subject passes. More than a merged subject, provided coverage is sufficient and the evidence significant. NiklausGerard (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Correct me if I’m wrong (please), but it looks like the consensus is clear from what I’ve read in this discussion, and seeing as it’s more than a week old, there should be an idea of what to do at this point (and close it, of course). —Lord of Fantasy (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After a quick look, I don't know if the consensus is to keep the article or merge it with another. XfDs are typically relisted if the admin or an editor viewing it doesn't see a clear consensus that has emerged. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that, after checking the changes that have been made to the article since the AfD, I am still in the merge camp. A large portion of the reception is from listicles and trivial mentions. A lot of it feels like desperate grasping for any mention at all in any publication ever without any kind of clear and logical connection. SIGCOV has not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt contrary to the Keep !votes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wanna add on to this, as I forgot to mention something earlier. How come there’s no discussion regarding the character’s backstory (in reception, specifically)? It’s just occurring to me know, and I know that, for a fact, it has garnered a lot of coverage in recent years, specifically from WatchMojo, IGN, and Screen Rant, with many even stating the scene as what made Pixar what it is today (with how it includes saddening tropes in its feature films / establishing their brand). Just thought I’d point this out real quick — it’s probably the biggest cultural discussion regarding the character, even more-so than the gender themes. And also, there was that giant internet theory in 2016 discussing that Andy’s mom was actually Jessie’s former owner (there’s a lot of publications on this too, although this more has to do with Emily and Mrs. Davis). —Lord of Fantasy (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By far not "any mention at all in any publication ever" has been used in the article. Though I agree that our reception section can probably be structured better - a typical problem which can be solved by editing and is therefore not an argument against the existence of an article. I have added short commentary (which includes the backstory) from yet another book source, which designates half a page (which I can see) to the character. This special edition of Entertainment Weekly has several pages on Jessie, mostly interviewing persons involved in her creation. Daranios (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios This is actually an excellent find for both the reception and development sections. Although I’d hold off on editing until a true consensus has been made. Nice work, though! —Lord of Fantasy (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2022 (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.