Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Wakefield

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 Sweet Valley High#Characters. (non-admin closure) Northern Escapee (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Wakefield

[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)

No information on reception and page mostly contains in-universe information that do not have much sourcing. Sources provided are mostly links to Amazon. lullabying (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (negotiable) - Nomination fails to give a reason for deletion. Per WP:NEXIST, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:ATD, "The article is poorly written", "The article is poorly sourced", or "The article is too much plot" are not reasons for deletion. In fact, these points are even listed in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Dark knight 2149 02:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149: This article fails WP:GNG and the page is just WP:FAN. All the in-universe information doesn't seem appropriate, especially without reliable sources from third-party literature critics, and Wikipedia is not a fan site (there is Wikia for this). lullabying (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, any thoughts for a "redirect" as a wikireader lookup? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's no "notable" information anywhere in the article. No development, reception, or reviews. It's WP:PLOTONLY with a few references (mostly from Amazon.com), and at the moment, it's clearly WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reception section or like, no sources found that suggest it might be possible to write one. Fails GNG/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sweet Valley High as an alternative to deletion. If she is the central character to a franchise, she's a plausible search term. She is already mentioned in the character list of the franchise page, making it a suitable target per WP:ATD-R. -2pou (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sweet Valley High per 2pou's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per 2Pou. Abhi88iisc (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect. Main character in a highly notable work. pburka (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Topic lacks sources to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer: Because the nominator doesn't give a policy-based reason for deletion (only citing arguments about quality of the article that fail WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN), any "Per nom" votes above should be dismissed per WP:NOTAVOTE. Dark knight 2149 18:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statements such as this are both unnecessary and annoying. It is a clear assumption of bad faith on the part of the AfD participants and stupidity on the part of admins that they would be unable to tell a bad faith vote from a good one. "Per nom" vote is not automatic grounds to ignore it if the nom has laid out a convincing argument._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sweet Valley High#Characters, seems to be a valid redirect target, but zero real world notability for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Sweet Valley High#Characters per others, no independent notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Sweet Valley High#Characters. After the three lede sentences, the article is a complete fail against WP:WAF; it is all in-universe summary. With no real world comment to make about the character, there is no basis for a standalone article. The content is possibly suited to https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108949/characters/nm0199590?ref_=tt_cl_t1, but is not for Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as is the emerging consensus. No real world content from independent sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2021 (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.