Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie (Toy Story)


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jessie (Toy Story)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No assertion of notability here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, as characters appearing in only a single work of fiction fail WP:FICT unless there is significant coverage of the character in reliable secondary sources, which does not seem to be the case here. There is only 1 sentence that references a secondary source, and merely to mention that the character was given some sort of award. This could easily be mentioned in the main article on the film. This article is merely an expanded plot summary and thus fails WP:NOT, as the plot is already summarized in the article on the film itself. I do not think it likely that secondary sources exist which would establish this character's independent notability, so I support deletion. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Fair amount of secondary material here. This character evidently has a fair amount of popularity as the Wall Street Journal says it was one of the hottest toys of 1999.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see much of use in the google hits, and mention of merchandising from the film and its sales figures are probably better suited to the article on the film itself. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, that WSJ source does not say it was "one of the hottest toys of 1999." All it says is "From high-end digital-videodisk players to Jessie the Cowgirl dolls, they bought for everyone -- including themselves -- in what is shaping up as possibly the strongest holiday season this decade." They could just as easily have said Koosh balls or Nerf guns. The source does not indicate that Jesse dolls were a "hot" toy, nor that they sold particularly well, and it certainly doesn't establish notability outside of the film itself. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it says what I said it says... but it's further down in the article."Like many other traditional retailers, Disney tried to drive shoppers back and forth between its Web site and physical stores. Late in the season, its online store promoted a $3 discount on a Buzz Lightyear doll for shoppers at its stores. Disney also used the Web to broadcast the final availability of one of the season's hottest toys -- a Jessie the Cowgirl doll. Both dolls are characters in the 'Toy Story' films."--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Major film character whose real-world significance establishes notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How does one single, fairly trivial source establish notability? Pretty much any recent film character can beat that by at least ten references. Characters like this are just a part of the main film until something really signifcant is actually added. TTN (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The real-world significance is not established in the article. The source used to describe the sale of toys based on the character requires a subscription in order to view the article, hence it probably can't be used, which makes the statement unverifiable. In the article's lead, which we are able to view, all it says is "From high-end digital-videodisk players to Jessie the Cowgirl dolls, they bought for everyone -- including themselves -- in what is shaping up as possibly the strongest holiday season this decade." This hardly indicates that there were especially strong sales for Jessie dolls; all it establishes is that toys based on the character were sold, along with thousands of other toys. Merely saying "toys existed" doesn't help to establish notability. If you feel that you can FIX the article by adding more reliable secondary sources that would help show why the character is notable, then by all means do, but otherwise deletion is a perfectly valid option. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement that you be able to read the sources or even that they be on line for them to count.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case you should put the quote in the citation, since the article is not freely viewable in full. This is a common practice when using sources that aren't online or can't be viewed in full. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per TTN. No assertion of real-world significance since it doesn't exist. Eusebeus (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "it doesn't exist". There are lots of fictional characters that have Wikipedia articles.  Surely they "exist" in some sense?  There is indeed in the article an assertion of notability referenced to the Wall Street Journal.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List_of_Toy_Story_characters if the keep arguments aren't enough. No sense turning all the links to this article into redlinks when there's a good place to redirect to.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  21:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Book sourcing exists but no indication that Jessie is the subject of any of those works. Lots of reviews for the film exist mentioning Jessie.  I wish we wouldn't write articles for characters using reviews that by definition doesn't cover the character solely.  But because we do, these sources should be sufficient.  The article as written now is...unacceptable.  We have a few sources about the "toy" upon which we hang the article. Protonk (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge the few bits of real-world info into List of Toy Story characters, with no prejudice against spinning-out when added real-world information becomes overwhelming to the character list. But there's no good reason to have a spinout article at the moment. – sgeureka t•c 08:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of Toy Story characters until such time that a spin-out might be justified by sufficient sources. - JasonAQuest (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Though perhaps not noticed, since the same nom statement was used, this is very different from many of the articles on fictional characters. The article is primarily about the toy, with only a little supporting plot, there are 3rd party sources separate from the fiction, and iot is not written in-universe. DGG (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability within acceptable limits with plenty of obvious opportunities for more.  There are the notes on the character's popularity (the toy sales) and on her impact (the cowgirl award).  More would be nice, but that seems sufficient to me. Rhindle The Red (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2008 (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.