Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer Roberts


 * 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. New sources added appear to make it now meet Wikipedia talk:Notability (fictional characters). (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Summer Roberts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No out-of-universe notability - just some summaries and a trivia section. Beerest355 Talk 20:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Not a great article, but she's an iconic character from a show that was very popular for a while. There are independent sources for the show, e.g.:
 * The O.C.: A Critical Understanding (Critical Studies in Television) by Lori Bindig and Andrea M. Bergstrom
 * O.C. Undercover: An Unofficial Guide to the Stars and Styles of the O.C. by Brittany Kent
 * Plus a lot of newspaper and magazine and website stories. I added a couple of refs to the article. It needs improvement, e.g. more on the TV production aspects of the character's history (casting, becoming increasingly central to the show, etc) and analysis of the character (there's good material on that in the Bindig and Bergstrom book). So there's material out there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: I concede that the article isn't the best, but she was one of the primary characters of the show, which was itself well received. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited from being a character from a popular show. If notability can't be established outside of "she's a main character on a show" then the article is unneeded. Beerest355 Talk 19:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Now, don't take this as a personal thing and far be it for me to tell you what you should do, but have you considered contributing to Wikipedia talk:Notability (fictional characters), rather than being a wee bit overzealous in nominating pages for deletion? Cheers. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * After some research, it appears that there is, in fact, scholarly work on the subject of this article. Had you spared a minute to have searched for any of these, you would have found them yourself. After viewing your user contribs. log, I can't say I am especially impressed; perhaps that is simply the so-called "inclusionist" within me, but I do honestly think that you have been nominating acceptable articles that, I shall concede, can be improved upon. If you keep this up, you'd nominate virtually all the articles on fictional characters for goodness' sake. Please, just for a while, put it on hold till there's a policy drafted — you're more than welcome to work on that, though. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't nominate fictional characters exclusively, and I don't target every single one. Unless I see there is no chance of notability, I won't nominate it. However, there are several times where I've made mistakes, and I have closed nominations early because of that. Beerest355 Talk 01:13, 14 July 2013 (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.