Sara Sidle: Now I am nominating this for deletion as many of the sources used are primary and/or unreliable, other reliable sources seem to focus much on the character's departure.  A quick Google search doesn't seem to give sources that prove the character's notability (per WP:FICT .)
 I am open to discussion, however, because the fact that fans of the character campaigned to keep Jorja Fox from leaving the show may be notable.  Spinixster (chat!) 10:28, 13 July 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!) 10:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It definitely hits the notability requirement as Jorja Fox 's exit from the show in 2007 and return in 2009 was covered across reliable sources.  There is also an LA Times article from 2015 that recaps "Immortality" along with how the Sidle-Grissom relationship grew.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 06:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Conyo14 I understand your point, but aside from the relationship article, is there anything else that proves the character’s notability?  Just because Jorja’s leave was covered among multiple sources doesn’t necessarily mean that the character she plays is notable enough to have a separate page.  Perhaps some sources about the fan following or about the character herself.  Spinixster (chat!) 07:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's the thing though, those articles don't just play on Jorja's exit, they also focus on the character too.  Enough for me to consider the article notable.  Unfortunately, the sources in this article have dead links.  So, depending on the outcome, I can find new links to place there.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Conyo14 FYI, you can improve an article even if it's at AFD.  Right now, the article has extensive sourcing issues.  Spinixster (chat!) 01:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's called laziness sometimes.  Perhaps this week I can get to it.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No reliable sources to provide reception or analysis to meet WP:SIGCOV .  Even after the improvements, there are only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs here that provide WP:PLOT details or database style information about the actress.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I found a Today article [10] which is independent, reliable, and provides quite significant coverage over her character.  I entered the citation into the "Character development" and "Public reaction" sections.  I understand this source alone won't save the article, but I still stand strong that the public reaction section is enough; or, at the very least merge this section into the main article.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 22:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I do not see enough SIGCOV to maintain a separate article.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting with a request that editors consider a Redirect which is frequently the outcome of AFDs involving fictional characters in all genres.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  14:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and slight merge to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters unless improved.  The reception suggests glimmers of notability; sadly, the claim that "Sara Sidle has gained an extensive fan base throughout the years." is unreferenced.  Second paragraph claims that "Grissom and Sidle's relationship has been the subject of intense debate in the press and on-line forums" but the reference is to a blog ( http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/csi/index.html ) that I cannot locate anyway - the link is to an index and the page is dead, and Internet Archive is not finding it for me either.  The rest of the "Public reaction" is a bit better referenced, although most links are dead or primary (fan sites).  The best I was able to access is this - a single paragraph in Hollywood Insider (a breaking news section in EW).  I don't think that's enough to merit keeping this (but merging some info might be ok).  If someone can find coverage of this in reliable sources, preferably academic, showing this has received enduring attention (at least as a case study for academics), a case could be made this character is notable due to that fan outcry, but currently, the referencing is too poor to make that case and said fan outcry does not appear to be very significant.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:45, 29 July 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: merge