Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidney Prescott

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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Prescott[edit]

Article about a character written entirely in-universe, with no independent references to assert notability. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The main character of multiple notable works. Summary of the plot relating to the character cannot adequately be covered in the articles on the individual films, because it should be dealt with in a single article not spread across three separate ones. Character is clearly notable as any discussion of the films will inevitably include some discussion of this character, which seems enough to justify notability to me. JulesH (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some discussion of the character, yes, but this much detail contravenes WP:PLOT, crucially when there are no real-world references. The articles for the three films adequately cover the topic. They cover the topic much better.
  This article is nearly three years old and shows no sign of development to meet Wikipedia's standards in writing about fiction. "Current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply: ... plot summaries", which is solely what this article is, and, if the last three years are anything to go by, will stay, unless exterminated by this process. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ah... pity that it has not been markedly improved in three years, but that does not matter since wiki has no WP:DEADLINE for such to happen and does not demand such. However, and in just doing a very cursory search per WP:BEFORE in Google and Google NEws, I came accross an article at Bloody Disgusting specifically speaking toward her, her part in the series, and bemoaning her not being in Scream 4. The Movie Boy speaks toward her first appearance in the series, Matchflick goes into detail about her return in Scream 2, and Media Circus speaks toward her appearance in #3. There is much, much more. And yes... all these sources speak of her in relationship to the series itself... but that is to be expected, as that is where she was "born". The character does indeed have a notability, and since the additional informations would overly burden the parent article(s), and more inportantly as these informations are spread out over 3 seperate but related articles, she is allowed a seperate article. Per guideline. Tag for sources and expansion so as to continue to improve the paperless encyclopedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the result is we are keeping a crap article that will stay crap. I appreciate that we have no deadline, but when the work has no intention of being done... The JPS^{talk to me} 09:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since I saw no evidence that it had been tagged, I did so... for rescue, expansion, cleanup, and sourcing. Maybe someone will look into it now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mayalld (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, AfD is not cleanup. These are cleanup issues you describe, not deletion issues. Since there are users who have expressed the desire in this discussion to save this article, they should be given the chance. Being a crap article, fortunately, is not grounds for deletion. I would suggest that merge and redirect would be a better option if they are not able to fix the in universe issues. Redfarmer (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will redirect after about a week of this closure. I don't think it's a clean up issue -- it's that encyclopedic content is non-existent. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is a highly visible, lead character, in a major triology of motion pictures. Of course, it needs clean-up, and that can be a by-product of the AfD process. Rescue it and fix it. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JulesH et al. here's 40+ searchable books that may help as well. -- Banjeboi 14:25, 4 February 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.