Catherine Willows: Just because an actor won an award for the portrayal of the character doesn't mean the character themselves are notable.  A quick Google search doesn't give many sources to prove the character's notability.  I may be wrong, thus this AfD nomination.  Spinixster (chat!) 14:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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!) 14:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Beyond those listed in the article, I found sources on this character in USA Today , Deadline , CBS , ET , CBR (also here ), Screenrant , The Wrap , Collider , and Slate .  And that is a preliminary search.  I'd imagine there are even more sources out there on her, and think this search only scratches the surface.  Historyday01 ( talk ) 16:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep coverage meets GNG, what's more likely needed here is a plot summary trim or condensation, not deletion.  Jclemens ( talk ) 16:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I knew we'd eventually get to this considering the trim of CSI characters.  However, Catherine actually has a lot of WP:SIGCOV per Historyday01's sources.  Ideally, the article can be fixed a bit, but AfD requires a WP:BEFORE search.  On whether the article reaches WP:GNG , well the plot summary can be trimmed to include character growth and any reliable recaps.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  The reception section in the article is bad.  Awards are for the actor, not character, then we have listicles / trivial recognition like "number 82 on Bravo's 100 Greatest TV Characters" and some pasing comments about her from some episode reviews.  This takes me to the soruces found above (from Historyday01), who did not however provide any analysis nor suggest they did anything but WP:GOOGLEHITS report.  USAToday is a WP:INTERVIEW with the actor about the character, which means issues with independence.  deadline is a short piece about her coming back to the show.  So-so.  CBS reads like a press release.  Sorry, I don't have time to review more sources, but they are not impressive, and I distincly note they are not scholarly but rather at celebrity media level or worse.  It is onus on those voting keep to argue there is reliable SIGCOV, not throw a list of links and imply they may or may not be helpful here.  This is bad AFD practice.  The character may be notable, but nobody has estabilished this, the article does not do it, sources presented here that I reviewed are bad.  For now, my vote is to redirect this to the list of characters.  Ping me if someone wants to argue there are good sources here to improve this with and I'll reconsider my vote.  But right now the sources found seem weak.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on the grounds that large numbers of people are likely to want information on this character and come here looking for it.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 20:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:ITSUSEFUL Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, I will.   Okay, I did.  That was neat.  I observe that "It's useful/useless" applies to arguments for keeping/deleting unencyclopedic content, which this is not, and it advises participants to say why the information is useful, which I did.  But thank you for keeping me on my toes.  Good to stay sharp!   Hm, but the fact that you said it might mean that my "why" wasn't clear enough for you.  I will improve it!  Catherine Willows was one of the most popular and long-lasting characters on what was in its day one of the most popular shows in the United States to the point at which the CSI effect changed the way our legal system works, and very large numbers of people will be interested in finding reliable, encyclopedically written, out-of-universe information about her and will come here to find it.  To address what @ Spinixster : says, they'll come here specifically because Wikipedia is not Fandom.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 00:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Darkfrog24 I am very confused about what you said.  Even if the series is very popular, if the character is not notable on their own, they do not warrant a page on Wikipedia.  See WP:FICTION .  Spinixster (chat!) 08:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, but Jclemens and Conyo14 already showed that she is notable on her own.  Once the article passes that threshold, we consider things like whether its existence serves Wikipedia's readership.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 21:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They just agreed with what Historyday said, they did not show that she is notable on her own.  I already did an assessment of the sources Historyday has provided below, which you have seen.  Spinixster (chat!) 08:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Darkfrog24 Aside from what Piotrus said, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Fandom .  Spinixster (chat!) 09:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Additional specific analysis of the proposed sources would be helpful.  "A lot of people would like this" is not.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The resources linked by Historyday generally point towards constituting significant coverage.  Admittedly, to go through the rest of the sources, the amount of independence does go back and forth throughout the list.  The source of "The Wrap" is mainly an interview with the actor, and the "ET" source also includes an interview segment with the character's actress as well, meaning those portions are not completely independent.  But even then, the rest of the sources do seem to talk about the character individually, and also create notability for Catherine on her own.  The article also supplements this with the actress's thoughts during interviews, which can't be really used as "independent sources", but there's enough there in regards to independence throughout the segments focused solely on the character.  As for the reception, it does seem appropriate to include accolades the actress won because the actress and character are effectively linked, so I would maintain it.  Utopes ( talk / cont ) 03:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources provided by Historyday01 above pass SIGCOV and she is notable enough to have her own article.  The article just needs some fixing.  Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 03:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment As the nominator, I'd like to do an evaluation on the sources that Historyday provided myself.  USA Today, ET and TheWrap are interviews, and thus do not prove notability.  CBS is the actor's biography: notice how the url says "csi-vegas/cast/216685/" and CSI is a CBS show.  First ScreenRant article talks about the show, CSI: Vegas, rather than the character.  Obviously, for a major character, she will be mentioned a lot in articles relating to the show, but that does not prove notability of the individual character ( MOS:TRIVIA , WP:NOTTVTROPES ) Second ScreenRant article talks about how the aforementioned spinoff of CSI has "wasted" the character.  While it does focus on the character's storylines, I don't see how this proves that the character is notable.  (also MOS:TRIVIA , WP:NOTTVTROPES )  CBR is similar to the second ScreenRant article.  Deadline and Collider are similar to the second ScreenRant article, but about the character's return to the new series.  Slate is an opinion piece about the character, which can be used for the Reception section, but other than that is not enough to prove the character's individual notability.  I would like to remind you that just because the show is notable doesn't mean that the major characters are.  Just because there are multiple sources about the character's appearances on the show does not mean that the character is inherently notable; this is something I've learned myself.  I want future voters to keep this in mind before making a decision.  Spinixster (chat!) 10:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Excellent summary.  I found a few hits on Google Scholar.  I added one to the article and listed the others on the talk page.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 22:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the first article I cannot access without paying :(, the third article is a just a mention, the fourth one is also not significant coverage.  However, the second article is quite interesting and at least passes a partial if not all the way.  It comes from the Texas State Library as a peer-reviewed journal: Journal of Research on Women and Gender .  Granted the entire article discusses crimes against women as portrayed by the show vs the crimes against men and then analyzes the issues, but it does use Catherine Willows attack against her as a prime example.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for using what access you have to evaluate the sources that I couldn't reach.  I was expecting that they wouldn't all be hits.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 23:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Darkfrog24 Since it seems like you would be interested in improving the article, I would recommend checking out MOS:FICTION .  In short, it should have more information about the real-life aspects of the character and less WP:CRUFT .  The article also lacks references.  If you need more examples, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Quality content .  Spinixster (chat!) 08:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not clear how you find this article to deviate from MOS:FICTION.  Which issue causes you to believe that the article should be deleted?  Right now, improvements should focus on keeping its head above water rather than perfecting the swim stroke.  Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 15:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Darkfrog24 Perhaps you should re-read what I said.  I was just saying that because you were interested in improving the article, I did not say it was needed, but it would be preferred.  I did a WP:BEFORE search and many of the results were much like the sources Historyday has given, so I started an AfD debate to debate on whether or not the article is notable.  I have said in the nomination that I may be wrong, I never said I was correct.  Spinixster (chat!) 15:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: keep