Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwen Tennyson


 * 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. There may be a valid discussion to be had about merging or redirecting the Gwen Tennyson page, but this is not the place for that discussion. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Gwen Tennyson

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


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

There has been an edit war about whether this page should be an article or a redirect, so I'm bringing here to settle it. I am neutral on the matter. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify for everyone, this discussion is meant to cover both the articles on Gwen and Ben. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements,  and Television.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep 1) I take a very dim view of IP addresses edit warring to make something a redirect, and 2) The Google Scholar and Google News links show sufficient coverage for the character and the actresses who have played her. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, appears to have significant coverage including scholarship such as that describes her as "prominent female character".  Pika voom  Talk 09:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I, too, see enough coverage in secondary sources to fullfill WP:GNG. The current state of the article is not the decisive critereon. Daranios (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For the sake of completeness, spelling out some Google hits: This paper has a section and a bit more about the character, this book has some sentences of description and commentary. Daranios (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The aforementioned secondary sources in my opinion establish the notability for Gwen Tennyson. Just to be clear about Ben Tennyson, too: The Achilles Effect discusses him just like it discusses Gwen; in addition, this paper discusses both, too, so I think Ben is also notable. Daranios (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. The current article is 100% plot summary and fancruft, there is no reception and creation and design section is based on passing mentions. No sources that contain SIGCOV have been presented (the link by Pkvavoom is broken for me, and Jclemens claim of WP:GOOGLEHITS is not helpful). IF there are good sources, please link them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Would that work for you instead of the link by ? Daranios (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Daranios Yes, thank you. Reading... done. She has a one-sentence analysis, that's not enough for WP:SIGCOV so I stand by my view that we don't need a stand-alone article for her (assuming this is the best source we've found?), but I'd be fine with that analysis being paraphrased in the article about the series. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated here, Gwen Tennyson and Ben Tennyson. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect restore redirect with a prohibition on recreating. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage about non-in-universe aspects of the character to show they meet WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep both articles on a procedural basis. This is a poorly constructed AfD since the nominator is not actually arguing for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy, and this is reinforced by the fact that other editors in this discussion have identified reliable sources not yet cited in the articles which provide coverage. This should have been an advertised merge discussion on the main Ben10 talk page as to whether each of the character articles should remain as standalone pages in mainspace, not an AfD. Seconding Jclemens's stance that we should not pay any heed to IP addresses edit warring about alleged quality issues. Haleth (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While you are right that the nom failed with their op, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Other valid points have been raised, no need to waste others time and ignore them. I'd however support WP:TROUTing the op and hope they'll use better rationale for their nominations in the future. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, this AfD is a waste of time, and valid points have been raised by other editors, almost all of which...support keeping both articles in mainspace, but with different rationales compared to mine. The only valid dissenting opinion I could see was Onel5969's view that it should be redirected on the grounds that there is no significant coverage and thus WP:GNG is not met. But, there appears to be no consensus supporting that position based on the evidence presented so far at the time of writing, either. Haleth (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Ben 10 characters for now, article has no real-world context to show why it would be notable. If that can be found I have no opposition against recreation, but it's pretty much Wikia material as of this AfD, though it's a valid search term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, references found seem fine. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Although there is the general notability maintenance template on both, both are characters in a relatively notable show. Additionally, Ben 10 is the main character, so I think their article is notable enough. Gwen? Also notable IMO. InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 23:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, Ben Tennyson meets the notability guidelines and has long-term significance. I’m neutral on Gwen Tennyson. Sahaib (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as out of scope for AFD, nothing proposed to be deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2022 (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.