Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Hendrix

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]

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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails WP:Plot and WP:N. Karanacs (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Law & Order SVU as plausible search term. -Atmoz (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing but plot summary with no encyclopedic content as required by WP:NOT: Wikipedia covers fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, reception, and significance of notable works. The subject of the article also fails WP:N as there are no reliable, independant sources that examine the specific character apart from the television series. Them From Space 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above~~, then redirect for search purposes.~~ G'day, Jack Merridew 11:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
struck suggested redirect; there are other hits on this name, such as http://www.rebeccahendrix.com/ — G'day, Jack Merridew 11:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Character not notable enough and this literally just a plot summary. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:A Nobody is attempting to "save" the article by merging it without discussion to List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters, however considering the extremely minor nature of this character, such a merge is not appropriate as character lists do not include such characters. After it was reverted, he started a discussion, but did so at the talk page instead of just noting so here.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but those "merges" are literally just name drops, so I left it. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we could merge all the characters that have articles on them to that list, that would be better than having individual articles. We just have to make sure the list itself is notable and has a substantial lead to show that. Them From Space 18:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some already, but Hendrix is too minor for even mentioning in the list. Some others, particularly Benson, Stabler, and Munch, are notable enough for standalone articles, but they need some serious work. (the OR...man the OR). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is part of a larger pattern of such disruption.
Note the following from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion, which is linked to from {{AfD}};
- You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of GFDL). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy. This is not an issue, however, if the merged content is not merely copied and pasted, but instead completely rewritten so that only uncopyrightable facts are transferred, not copyrightable expression.
Nakal anak. G'day, Jack Merridew 03:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the following reasons:

Enough information about the character to fill an article.
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).
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.
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. Them From Space 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. Them From Space 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 Nobody^{My 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]

Keep, it would be redundant to add her biography to the 5 or 6 episodes she appears in. One biography linked to the episodes is much better. It meets requirements for both notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor fictional character with not a single reliable source about that fictional character? Why is this even a discussion?Bali ultimate (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it is a major recurring character verifiable through multiple reliable sources as confirmed on Google News that discuss the character... --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Rebecca Hendrix (played by whoever), a psychologist who specializes in victims of sexual assault..." slides right into the five episodes she appears in. The cited sources are press releases or offhand mentions; nearly none of the Google News hits are actually about this character. Redirect this wherever, I don't care, but there's nothing here to salvage except a ton of redundant plot info for a show we already cover in episode-by-episode detail. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did a little search for the character: Found Futon Critic 1, ProJo.com, The Record, Futon Critic 2, Inteligencer, and Corriere Canadese (French), among others. The character herself edges the plate for WP:GNG... and one biography on 6 different pages seems a bit clumsy. She is not only WP:Verifiable, she is so in numerous WP:RS that deal with her. A redirect does not serve the better good of Wikipedia, as it is not proper to delete sourced and encyclopedic material. A merge? Well, that can be discussed on the article's talk page as is recommended by WP:ATD and WP:AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot repetition for a non-notable character which hasn't received substantial coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which as has been proven above is a false and dishonest claim as it is a notable character who has received substantial coverage. Please be honest in AfDs. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the sourcing closer, it's just plot summary and TV.com which is far from reliable Delete or Merge, to list of characters just do not keep as an invidual article. Secret ^account 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge (not delete) content to some list of Law + Order characters. Female doctors are notable, was a central character for a short time. 3rd party sauces. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 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]

Delete as an unnotable, minor fictional character. Eusebeus (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is actual a notable, major fictional character. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not in my view; now I suggest you stop, since you have already stretched my patience sorely by grossly abusing our WP:RTV policy. Eusebeus (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What in gods name does this have to do with whether Hendrix is a "unnotable, minor fictional character"? Ikip (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per A nobody and Dream Focus, notable and major fictional character. In addition, since many editors voting for delete have supported the deletion of nearly all character pages on wikipedia, the "unnotable, minor fictional character" sounds like just another common justification for the deletion of more character page work of editors. Ikip (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But couldn't much the same be said of editors such as yourself who have a long track record of nobly defending fictional content as important, encyclopedic and of immense value to readers to justify the retention of articles like this one? Eusebeus (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And you see the same editors running around nominating hundreds of things for deletion in a year, because they don't like something. There use to be a tool to track that, but it was taken down. Some people always vote delete, because they don't like this sort of thing on the wikipedia, while others want to keep it, because there is no reason to delete it. We aren't running out of space, and it isn't hurting anyway. Dream Focus 18:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It doesn't matter how much space we have, it matters whether the article meets existing WP guidelines and policies. Those are the arguments we should be having, not complaints of "but you always vote this way". Karanacs (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank You Eusebeus, your flattering characterization of me is accurate, is mine of some of the editors here, at least yourself? WP:KETTLE: I don't think it is hypocritical at all to point out how the majority of some editors time on wikipedia is spent trying to delete other editors contributions while I attempt to save those contributions, I see the two goals as mutually exclusive, and starkly different. Ikip (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD has been mentioned on Law & Order SVU, Law and Order, List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters, and List of Law & Order characters Ikip (talk) 17:35, 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 Nobody^{My 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 Nobody^{My 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 Nobody^{My 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 Nobody^{My 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 Nobody^{My talk} 19:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable subject. Article is entirely WP:PLOT except for two sourced items about Mary Stuart Masterson, one of which (under Development and production) might be good to add to that article since getting on Law & Order was (as I read in that article) considered a big break for her. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:05, 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 Nobody^{My 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.