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.
This article was previously a Good Article, but it has since been delisted.
Now I am nominating this for deletion as many of the sources used are primary and/or unreliable, other reliable sources seem to focus much on the character's departure. A quick Google search doesn't seem to give sources that prove the character's notability (per
WP:FICT.)
I am open to discussion, however, because the fact that fans of the character campaigned to keep Jorja Fox from leaving the show may be notable.
Spinixster(chat!)10:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: It definitely hits the notability requirement as
Jorja Fox's exit from the show in 2007 and return in 2009 was covered across reliable sources. There is also an LA Times article from 2015 that recaps "Immortality" along with how the Sidle-Grissom relationship grew.
Conyo14 (
talk)
06:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Conyo14 I understand your point, but aside from the relationship article, is there anything else that proves the character’s notability? Just because Jorja’s leave was covered among multiple sources doesn’t necessarily mean that the character she plays is notable enough to have a separate page. Perhaps some sources about the fan following or about the character herself.
Spinixster(chat!)07:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
That's the thing though, those articles don't just play on Jorja's exit, they also focus on the character too. Enough for me to consider the article notable. Unfortunately, the sources in this article have dead links. So, depending on the outcome, I can find new links to place there.
Conyo14 (
talk)
17:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I found a Today article
[1] which is independent, reliable, and provides quite significant coverage over her character. I entered the citation into the "Character development" and "Public reaction" sections. I understand this source alone won't save the article, but I still stand strong that the public reaction section is enough; or, at the very least merge this section into the main article.
Conyo14 (
talk)
22:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting with a request that editors consider a Redirect which is frequently the outcome of AFDs involving fictional characters in all genres. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!14:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect and slight merge to
List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters unless improved. The reception suggests glimmers of notability; sadly, the claim that "Sara Sidle has gained an extensive fan base throughout the years." is unreferenced. Second paragraph claims that "Grissom and Sidle's relationship has been the subject of intense debate in the press and on-line forums" but the reference is to a blog (
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/csi/index.html) that I cannot locate anyway - the link is to an index and the page is dead, and Internet Archive is not finding it for me either. The rest of the "Public reaction" is a bit better referenced, although most links are dead or primary (fan sites). The best I was able to access is
this - a single paragraph in Hollywood Insider (a breaking news section in EW). I don't think that's enough to merit keeping this (but merging some info might be ok). If someone can find coverage of this in reliable sources, preferably academic, showing this has received enduring attention (at least as a case study for academics), a case could be made this character is notable due to that fan outcry, but currently, the referencing is too poor to make that case and said fan outcry does not appear to be very significant. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here05:45, 29 July 2023 (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.