Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gil Grissom


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Gil Grissom

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

Much like the case of Sara Sidle, this article was also previously a Good Article. I am now nominating this for deletion because of: There are other problems, such as original research (ex. Parallels with Sherlock Holmes section) and WP:CRUFT, but the two I mentioned are the most important. I can elaborate on the points mentioned above if you wish, but I do not want the nomination message to be too long. I ask that people who wish to keep the article give sources that significantly covers the character from a real-world perspective (no plot summaries or brief mentions) and people who wish to delete the article consider voting a merge and/or redirect to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. Spinixster  (chat!)  01:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * poor sourcing: Most of the article is unsourced or sourced to either primary sources or plot summaries. For example, the reception section, which is the most important part of the article because it proves notability, is sourced to primary sources. The Fanfiction claim is sourced to the actual Fanfiction.net page, the website claim is sourced to two fan blogs, the miniature model claim is sourced to the actual Ebay page.
 * Not being notable: back to the reception section, the last paragraph does give some glimmers of notability. However, I don't think it is enough to pass GNG. The showrunner considers him to be the center of the show and the character is featured in many character lists, but I would say these are passing mentions of the character and do not give enough SIGCOV to prove notability. His final episode as a regular attracting a lot of views also does not prove notability. A quick Google search only gives passing mentions in plot summaries.
 * 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!)  01:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The character has been the subject of enough commentary in independent secondary sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. See:
 * — this book has extensive commentary on the character starting on page 186.
 * — contains extensive discussion and critical commentary on the character.
 * — academic paper examining the portrayal of hearing loss and deafness by Grissom's character
 * — has details about how Petersen came to be cast as Grissom.
 * — can't see the text but looks like another academic analysis
 * These sources establish that the subject has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that for those who wish to add the fifth source to the article should not be used using the link provided due to Researchgate being deemed unreliable at WP:RSP, but this can be used instead.  Spinixster   (chat!)  06:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jfire. There are more questionable articles on CSI characters, but this character is clearly historically notable. BD2412  T 03:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per sources posted above.4meter4 (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Byers and Kompare also have in-depth coverage of Sara Sidle. There is also this journal article where her character has coverage. @ I am wondering if the outcome at Articles for deletion/Sara Sidle would have been different had these sources been produced at that AFD. Would there be a way to re-open that discussion?4meter4 (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fulfills WP:SIGCOV. Deletion is not the answer. Reference improvement is the primary complaint, so let's request that.--SidP (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Okay, this is for sure the character that cannot be separated from the main list. Per Jfire's sources that fulfill your need of a real-world perspective, but also from within the 12 years Gil was shown at some point during the series, there is beyond the WP:SIGCOV necessary to have this article exist. Deletion is not cleanup. Conyo14 (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. No need to delete, there is sigcov. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:44, 10 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.