Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hodges (CSI: Crime Scene Investigation)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. History is under the redirect if someone wants to merge it. Star  Mississippi  02:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

David Hodges (CSI: Crime Scene Investigation)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Most sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. Spinixster  (chat!)  10:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy,  and Television.  Spinixster   (chat!)  10:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters per nom. Conyo14 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Like other articles about CSI characters, this is bloated and in need of better sourcing, but it needs to be trimmed down, not deleted. Looper TV Insider Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Since this is a character from a show I've watched many times, I was able to reduce much of its excess content. Take a look at the article now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Those sources are routine at best. Sorry :/. Conyo14 (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The two sources are either plot summaries or interviews, which do not prove notability. Sources need to be secondary, cover the character extensively and be written from a real-world perspective. Spinixster   (chat!)  03:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:SECONDARY. These sources are fine. In this scenario, the primary source would be the episode itself. I am not at liberty to comment on your other concern. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not at liberty??? Conyo14 (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's right. I was placed under a topic ban at AE. I don't agree with it, but I don't break it.  I have opinions about WP:FICTIONAL but I'm not allowed to tell you what they are. That part of this issue must be decided without me, at least for now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, it may be fine as you said, but it is not enough to prove notability. More sources that discuss the character extensively and in depth (WP:SIGCOV) and talk about the character from a real-world perspective (WP:FICT). It should not only be plot summaries (WP:NOTPLOT). Spinixster   (chat!)  01:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not allowed to discuss the issue of real-world vs in-universe perspective with you. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop talking to me about it. Here are some more sources: Collider rankings feel clickbaity but the character is being discussed as a character, not an actor. Distractify Cinemablend Again, these aren't the best, and I wouldn't necessarily use them in the article. This is about whether secondary entities not connected to the show talk about the character. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Cinemablend is listed as unreliable at WP:VG/S. Either way, it's a plot summary.
 * Distractify source is more about the actor's return to the show and only briefly mentions the character.
 * Collider listicle only briefly summarizes who the character is.
 * Again, you will need SIGCOV from a real world persective. Spinixster   (chat!)  14:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.