Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Hopps (Zootopia)


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Judy Hopps (Zootopia)

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. A loose necktie (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - I haven't really looked in to whether or not Judy has become significantly notable in her own right that an article split off from the main Zootopia article is appropriate, but even if it were, this is not the proper article to do so for multiple reasons. The entire article is just a list of appearances, and some of the descriptions for these appearances are literally just copied/pasted from the official descriptions of the games being described, and there are no reliable sources present. Also, if an article on Judy was to be created, it would likely be done at the Judy Hopps space (currently being used as a Redirect to the movie), rather than this title with its odd, unnecessary specifier. In short, whether or not Judy is notable or not, this current article is not the proper article for that, and should be removed from the encyclopedia mainspace, either through deletion or (to be generous) sending back to draft. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes GNG 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (I found these within minutes of searching, really wish people would start doing WP:BEFORE). "Article is bad" is not a good reason for deletion, and pretty much no article is improved in draftspace.★Trekker (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's twelve sources of varying quality and with varying focuses. Would you be willing to pick the best WP:THREE and explain why you think they motivate having an article for this fictional character separate from the work of fiction the character appears in? TompaDompa (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Single articles of works would be way too large if all information about notable individual characters were shoved into them, and this character has appeared in several other places than the original work they debuted in. I don't really care about sources having "varying focuses" or "varying quality" as long as they can still be considered reliable overall (if you think one or more do not qualify as reliable at all feel free to point out them specifically). I have demonstrated in depth coverage and I could easily find more with some more Googling, so I don't really feel like picking a "top 3" for whatever reason.★Trekker (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles aren't supposed to include all information in the first place, they are supposed to summarize. Sources do not just need to be WP:Reliable, they also need to provide WP:Significant coverage. In particular, coverage of fictional characters needs to go beyond plot description and be coverage specifically of the character(s) rather than the work(s) they appear in. The reason I'm asking is that I took a quick look at some of these sources and am not convinced that the coverage actually meets these criteria. That is to say, I'm not persuaded that a separate article for the character is warranted. Source number 6 is about a chatbot. Source number 5 mainly contains plot detail, and some of what I would characterize as analysis of Zootopia (rather than analysis of the character Judy Hopps). Source number 8 is about a deleted scene. Source number 12 is about the different varieties of English used by different characters in Zootopia and contains, to my eye, no significant coverage of the character Judy Hopps (though the character is of course mentioned). TompaDompa (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess we simply disagree then about what counts as being about a character.★Trekker (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources provided by StarTrekker. The subject passes the general notability guideline, with significant coverage in multiple books and journal articles. &mdash; Ingenuity (talk &bull; contribs) 01:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as I believe that there is significant coverage on this subject in reliable, third-party sources. Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:HEY. Protagonist of a major film. Bearian (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see an article on Nick Wilde and/or every other character, so why just Judy? Espngeek (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of real-world notability. Indagate (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This is no notability at all.CastJared (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per . Plenty of coverage provided. WP:OTHERTHINGS regarding Nick Wilde is not a valid argument for deletion. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So basically a "positive female representation with flaws" should get her own article yet none of the other characters have theirs as well? Espngeek (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is adequate sourcing for other characters, I would recommend you take the time to create that article. There are plenty of subjects that could be deserving of an article per notability guidelines that don't currently have one, and those ones not existing are not a reason for others to not exist as well. Cerebral726 (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above sourcing, and I'll note that the delete arguments which assert non-notability in the face of sourcing, without disputing that sourcing, are not policy based. Our acme is not whether a character appears in more than one fictional work, but whether that character has received sufficient coverage. Jclemens (talk) 08:26, 17 February 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.