Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 15:42, 16 December 2024

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. This has been an impressively animated debate over an article about a fictional TV character. Bludgeoning turned into accusations of canvassing and vote-stacking. The detailed source analysis presented here was seen by some to be biased and shamelessly self-serving. When judged under the P&G filter, I see the delete arguments having a marginal upper hand, albeit not enough for a consensus. And since this isn't a BLP, the default action is a status quo. Please refrain from renominating for at least six months. No one wants to go through this again. Owen× ☎ 15:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Emily Prentiss

• Articles for deletion/Emily Prentiss
• Articles for deletion/Emily Prentiss (2nd nomination)

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Emily Prentiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prentiss is a non-lead character in a TV show, and fails WP:NFICTION, also cross-checking with WP:NBOOK and WP:NFILMCHAR. The most notable aspect of this character (outside of the show narrative itself) is that the actress who portrays the character left the show twice and returned twice. TiggerJay (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TiggerJay (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I just realized that this is the 2nd nom, and the prior result was a merge, and it appears that @User:DocZach brought this article back to life from draft space of their own accord without resolving the concerns originally brought up at the prior AfD. TiggerJay (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we encourage people to do precisely that, especially when they're rewritten the article in question. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I have addressed such concerns below. DocZach (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

However, the basis of my nom had nothing to do with the prior AfD, and thus the "rewrite" is an irrelevant factor, because the principle concerned that came to my attention about this article exists in the current version. It just so happens that the question of this fictional character has come up previously, and the concerns last year happen to be the same concerns that I currently have with the current version. Rather the concern should be if an article survived a AfD/Prod/CSD and then it was hastily brought up again for the same reason. However in this case, it did not survive the first action, and there is clear contention on this relisting. TiggerJay (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You are aware of the effort the restorer spent in improving the article, which means you know, or should know of, the timing involved. To neither mention the currency of the rewrite nor the rewrite itself in your follow up is still unreasonably inconsiderate. Not properly acknowledging such things evokes memories of bad old days' BATTLEGROUND behavior; let's not go there. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing that. I spent a lot of time researching about this character and writing this article. I have just spent the last few hours revising the article to add more sources and information, and please let me know if you think it looks better now. DocZach (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that many edits (over 17k bytes) DocZach has made which has increased the overall article size, and breadth of coverage. Even an additional 6k since this AfD was raised. Adding plenty of source material to flesh out the various sections that were added. However, size/length has never been the qualifier for inclusion -- hence why many STUBs are acceptable. Rather the question is that beyond simply being that Prentiss appears to be a well written character (ie has a specific personality, with a background, and an evolving role), couldn't be said about anyother main character of a popular TV show? For example, when you look at the main cast of the even longer running NCIS (TV series) with ~130 more episodes, of their NCIS (TV series) § Cast and characters you can see that characters with similar lengths of appearances are simply redirects to a "List Of..." page. Certainly you could fill a page with "verifiable facts" about each character, but that isn't the criteria for having a dedicated article -- that is what fandom and IMDB are for. The majority of things which seem to have received WP:SECONDARY coverage have been far more about Brewster (thus Prentiss tangentially) - for example, the impact of choosing the go grey instead of dying her hair or that she left the show so she could "return to her comedic and sitcom roots". That is real life choices of the actress impacting the character that needed to be accommodated. What might make the noteworthiness is the other way around; if the show creators wanted to make a big statement to the industry by specifically directing the actress to go gray, that then had a domino effect on the industry. Otherwise it's just a random factoid. TiggerJay (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

With this newer rendition of the article being up for only a few days, I have made significant contributions and devoted a lot of effort to research and writing in relation to this article. After reviewing the relative policies, it is clear that Emily Prentiss, the character HERSELF, meets both WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION, and deleting the article or restoring it to a simple redirect is a very ignorant and foolish idea, especially when this article is being continuously improved day-by-day.

Emily Prentiss is a key figure in Criminal Minds, especially Season 12 and onward, when she becomes Unit Chief and later Section Chief, cementing her as one of the most important characters in the show’s 17-season run. She has been in all but three of the seasons, and has been brought back two times by fan demand. Her storylines—like her faked death to evade Ian Doyle and her leadership during high-stakes cases—are not just central to the series but have also been widely discussed in reliable secondary sources. Outlets like ScreenRant, Collider, and TVLine have provided in-depth analysis of her character, her role in the show, and her significance in cultural discussions. Many of these sources explore how Prentiss’s narrative and Paget Brewster’s portrayal have resonated with audiences and contributed to broader conversations, such as those about representation and aging in Hollywood.

The article has expanded significantly in recent weeks (as the proposer for deletion acknowledges), with thousands of bytes of new content added to deepen its coverage of her backstory, personality, storylines, and reception. This growth reflects my effort to continue developing this article to surpass the minimum requirements set by Misplaced Pages for an article like this. Removing it now would dismiss that progress and deny room for future improvements. Articles are not expected to be perfect from the outset, but this one has already demonstrated substantial progress, and its continued development would benefit readers and contributors alike.

The individuals suggesting we restore this article to a redirect have suggested that Prentiss’s article isn’t warranted because some characters from other shows, like NCIS, are treated as redirects. Firstly, I find this hypocritical because those same individuals are the ones complaining about me using the David Rossi article and the failure of deleting his article as one of the justifications for keeping Emily's article. As explained in the WP:OTHERSTUFF policy that those same individuals cited, Misplaced Pages evaluates articles individually, based on the notability of the subject and the availability of independent secondary coverage. However, the survival of the deletion on David Rossi's article is allowed to be used as an argument per an exception in that policy regarding outcomes of deletion proposals on related articles. And, if we are going to do comparisons to characters of other shows, I'd like to point to Grey’s Anatomy, where over a dozen characters—including multiple minor characters who are less central to the show and less notable than Prentiss—have their own articles. If those characters meet notability requirements, there is no valid reason why Emily Prentiss, a lead character who drives major storylines, should not. If they do not meet the notability requirements, then I struggle to understand the proposer's specific decision to delete this article rather than focus on other character articles that are obviously less notable, less covered, and less detailed. However, as I said before, the existence of other articles is not an argument for the existence of this article. I am just writing this paragraph to emphasize the hypocrisy and inconsistencies in the opposition's argumentation.

The real-world impact of Prentiss’s character further underscores her notability. Fan demand played a key role in Paget Brewster’s return to the series after her departure, highlighting the character’s importance to viewers. Additionally, Brewster’s decision to embrace her natural gray hair, which was written into the character, sparked cultural conversations about aging and beauty standards. These discussions were covered by major outlets like TODAY and E! Online, showing that Prentiss’s relevance extends far beyond the show.

Deleting this article would go against Misplaced Pages’s principles of being an open and comprehensive encyclopedia. Emily Prentiss is clearly notable under both WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION, and the article’s ongoing development should not be hindered by what appears to be an ignorant and abrupt attempt to discard it. Removing it now would erase a valuable resource and dismiss the ongoing effort to improve articles relating to Criminal Minds. DocZach (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep GNG is met, and even without the VALNET sources, which are just fine in this case. This is a particularly inconsiderate nomination in that the character article has been materially expanded and sources added within the last day or two. Of all the things that need cleaning up in Misplaced Pages, the notability of contemporary TV show characters is probably one of the least problematic areas. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Restore Redirect - The article is still nothing but detailed plot summary, without any kind of reception or analysis, and the added sources that are not primary or just episode summaries are not really significant coverage on the character. Many, in fact, are just news bits about the actress that portrayed her joining/leaving/returning to the show, rather than any kind of discussion on the actual fictional character that this article is about. Searches really are not bringing much up that is about the character, rather than the actress, that goes beyond summarizing plots. I have no problem if the current article was returned to draft space to be further developed, but its current state was not ready to be moved back to the main space. Rorshacma (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  If an article can be improved, then you should propose ways to improve it instead of deleting it because of a reason that doesn't even match the original proposer's logic behind deleting this article. He is arguing about a lack of notability, and you are arguing about the way this article is written. Yes, this article can be improved. No, deleting or redirecting an article is not the solution to issues that can easily be fixed in an article. DocZach (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: The premise for this deletion nomination is false. Emily Prentiss is a prominent lead character in the show, and her character has gotten even more notability over the past year due to recent events she has experienced. She is the Section Chief (lead) of the BAU, and if David Rossi is going to have his own article (who is notably less present in the series than Emily Prentiss), then Emily most certainly meets the criteria to have her own as well. I will attach just a few examples of her being mentioned by reliable sources.

DocZach (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument - there could very well be reason for David Rossi to also not have an independent article, but that is not what is under discussion here. The sources listed here, like the ones in the article, are either short announcements about the actress leaving/returning to the show, which are not significant coverage of the fictional character at all, or plot summaries that are largely from content farms. How important a character is within the show has no bearing on passing the WP:GNG or whether or not a independent article is appropriate or not. Rorshacma (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Please read the part of the policy that explicitly states, in relation to references to past failed deletions with similar reasoning, "this can be a strong argument that should NOT be discounted because of a MISCONCEPTION that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." DocZach (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• (e/c) Stating that a "premise is false" is meaningless without actual support, instead of simply claiming but it's true! However I welcome you to substantiate your claim that the "character has gotten even more notability over the past year." What independent, reliable sources to you have to support that claim that the character's notability has significantly changed in the past year? Simply reposting all of the references from the article is not helpful, as many of them establish Brewster (actress) as notable as her life events and acting career have evolved around this show and character, but Brewster's notability does not automatically transfer to the character she plays. Of the 14 source you provided, many of them were from 2016 and prior. Of the 4 that were published in 2024, two of them were from Screen Rant ("marginally reliable") and 1 from IMDB ("unreliable") and the Yahoo news one focused on the actress, not the character. (For clarification the reliability is based on WP:RSP.) TiggerJay (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  Per WP:RSPSS, ScreenRant is "considered reliable for entertainment-related topics." The "marginally reliable" attribute applies broadly because it is not recommended to use ScreenRant for "controversial statements related to living persons." DocZach (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain how NBOOK applies to this article? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The individual who proposed this article for deletion was the one who brought up the policy "NBOOK." DocZach (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

But yeah, NBOOK has no relevance, so I removed that from my statement. DocZach (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

In the original nom, NBOOK specifically listed as part of a broader "cross-check" for fictional characters, since there is no direct guidelines for fictional TV characters -- instead we have simply fiction, books and films... But to show comprehensive checking for anything else policy related that might apply for a fictional character, those places were also checked since people also desire to create articles about fictional characters from other works, and those guidelines can be helpful when a direct guideline does not exist. Instead we're basically left with WP:N and WP:NFICTION. TiggerJay (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Let me break down for you step by step the issues with these arguments:

1. To begin, Looper is unreliable. Screen Rant falls under Misplaced Pages:VALNET. CNN and Yahoo are just casting announcements, which are not relevant to the fictional character's notability (They would be important when covering the actress). Both CNN sources are just announcements of her casting return. The gray hair source discusses Prentiss's actress and her acceptance of her hair, rather than the character. If the character's hair was discussed, it'd be different, but this is specifically Paget's hair being discussed here. I can't access the Yahoo source, so a new link would be appreciated.
2. In-universe importance is not relevant to a subject's ability to get an article. This is included in nearly every fictional character guideline in the book. If these things are important, they need reliable sourcing showing that impact to back it up (None of which is illustrated in the sources provided)
3. Brewster's coverage is Brewster's coverage. Unless there is significant overlap between Prentiss and Brewster, such as an analysis article discussing how Brewster's performance greatly affected how Prentiss's character was formed, for instance, then maybe that could be viable, but all the sources provided are very clearly either about Prentiss or about Brewster, with only mentions about the other. Fan demand is relevant, but needs Misplaced Pages:SIGCOV to back it up. Additionally, that trivia is summarizable in a sentence or so, easily mergeable back to the character's list.
4. Most of your claims here I've already responded to (A Google Search one is a weird argument and I don't think it should've applied either way) but on the character list point, the current article has entirely plot information in it. This is summarizable at a list without much being lost, and many of the sources acknowledged at this AfD don't have enough coverage to build up substantial substance in the present one, since many of them are not about Prentiss and instead about Brewster, or fall under the scope of trivial coverage. I can go into a far deeper source analysis if you want clarification, of course.

Overall, there's a distinct lack of SIGCOV that hails from reliable sources, and the coverage doesn't really seem to exist that justifies the separation here. On the topic of Rossi, his AfD seemed to have a very inaccurate close; there was one Keep vote, and yet the AfD was closed as Keep despite two strong Merge arguments. Rossi should probably be rediscussed at a later date, since I don't believe he was discussed in-depth enough during his first AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I have revised much of the article to address much of your guys' concerns. Again, I find the proposal to delete this entire article very inconsiderate when it can very easily be improved rather than deleted. DocZach (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• I appreciate the effort to improve the article, but the issue with the sources, as described throughout the AFD, is still there. Most of the sources are trivial coverage, and nearly the entirety of the sources being used in the new Reception section are about Paget Brewster, the actress, with very minimal discussion about the character. Announcements about Brewster leaving/returning to the cast or articles about Brewster not dying her hair, where the only actual coverage on the fictional character is a sentence or two saying nothing more than it being the character Brewster portrays is just not significant coverage or analysis of the fictional character of Emily Prentiss. One of the articles on her hair does not, as far I can see, even mention the character of Emily Prentiss, so trying to tie sources like that into analysis of the character is starting to drift in to WP:SYNTH territory. Rorshacma (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  So your solution is to delete an article that you think has some issues instead of helping improve it first? DocZach (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Restore Redirect. Rorshacma has summed up my thoughts quite nicely above, both in terms of source analysis and on this article's current status. This article is quite literally exactly the same as it was last time, and Jclemens's above showing of page history just shows minor text alterations and nothing more. Nothing has changed that would change the outcome of the last AfD, and the BEFOREs of several editors above have turned up nothing. This has no reason to be a separate article and is better off redirected like it was before. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Then why does David Rossi have his own article when he is a less notable character than Emily Prentiss? DocZach (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Good question, perhaps Rossi should also be up for an AfD... But just because Rossi exists does not mean that Prentiss should exist -- see WP:OTHERSTUFF. TiggerJay (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The policy you are citing explicitly states:

"Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments, but even here caution should be used. Yet a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates."

The David Rossi article has already received a deletion proposal over a year ago as well for the same reason. The article survived.

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Rossi DocZach (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

To quote Rorshacma, "WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument - there could very well be reason for David Rossi to also not have an independent article, but that is not what is under discussion here." Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read the part of the policy that explicitly states, "this can be a strong argument that should NOT be discounted because of a MISCONCEPTION that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." DocZach (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You're missing a key part of that sentence: "If you reference such a past debate". While you have eventually mentioned the prior AfD for Rossi, that was not included in your initial statements regarding the character. You can use the Rossi article to discuss specific points, but the fact that the Rossi article exists is not a good argument. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not solely referencing the fact that the Rossi article exists. I am referencing the fact that there was a deletion attempt on the Rossi article for the SAME reason, and that deletion attempt failed. Under the policy you referenced, that's an appropriate argument. DocZach (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Rossi honestly should undergo revaluation. His discussion was closed as Keep with only one detailed Keep and two detailed Merge votes, which doesn't seem to be a proper consensus, especially given the low discussion turnout of that AfD. Besides, similar characters being kept is nowhere precedent. Even though I slightly disagree with the outcome, Vislor Turlough was kept at AfD as a Doctor Who companion, yet other Doctor Who companions (Such as Katarina, Kamelion, and Dan Lewis) were merged into other articles despite similar arguments and backgrounds. Consensus for notability of a subject is very much on a case-by-case basis, and having articles of similar backgrounds does not instantly guarantee that the same argument applies to another subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

At the time I mentioned OTHERSTUFF, you hadn't mentioned the other deletion discussion. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

A few thoughts on the Rossi:

1. While Rossi did survive an AfD, as per WP:OTHERSTUFF, "caution should be used..." because most do not receive wide participation -- and that could be said of Rossi. His AfD received little attention, with only 5 other people !vote. But moreover with an even split 3/3 keep versus merge -- the decision that there was consensus is somewhat questionable.
2. Of the top four characters by number of appearances per IMDB (whereby Prentiss is 7th). only half of them have an actual article, while two of them have redirects. Of those with redirects they still have over 100 more episodes each compares to Prentiss.
3. And looking at the current List of Criminal Minds characters the top two listings here as well are simply redirects. Those redirects were previously articles as well that were merged and deleted per GNG in 2023.
4. Interest in show and characters is falling significantly (WP:RECITISM), the page views for Criminal Minds alone has dropped off 50% and 70% for the characters of Reid, Prentiss, Jareau, Garcia and Rossi .

But all of that simply speaks to the dangers of introducing WP:WAX. It is a slippery slope to introduce the existence of other things (surviving AfD) as there are also other examples of other things were deleted with arguably more significance. This is really what the essay expresses, and instead the arguments should focus on why Prentiss (what the essay expresses as individual merit), not some of the common notability fallacies. TiggerJay (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Once again, I find it inconsistent and hypocritical that you are arguing against comparing articles while continuing to do just that. The argument that similar characters in other shows have been merged or redirected does not negate Emily Prentiss’s notability under WP:GNG or WP:NFICTION. Notability is determined on a case-by-case basis, and Prentiss clearly meets the criteria. She has been the subject of significant independent coverage in reliable sources such as ScreenRant, Collider, CNN, and TODAY, which analyze her pivotal role as Unit Chief and Section Chief, as well as her cultural impact and importance to the show. These sources go beyond plot summaries to discuss real-world factors like fan campaigns that brought Paget Brewster back to the series and the broader conversations about aging and representation sparked by the decision to integrate Brewster’s gray hair into the character. There's even articles about her romances within the show. These are not trivial mentions; they are substantial discussions about her relevance both within and beyond the show.

Misplaced Pages evaluates notability based on reliable secondary coverage, not arbitrary metrics like episode counts. Her role as a lead character in major story arcs and as the head of the BAU from Season 12 onward makes her far more central to the narrative than some characters who have been redirected. And potentially, articles for other Criminal Minds may also warrant creation, and I would not be opposed to such a decision.

Please read over WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Firstly, I reject the argument that declining page views signal reduced relevance. Secondly, notability is not temporary, and the character remains central to the currently airing Criminal Minds: Evolution. Interest naturally fluctuates, but revivals and major developments have historically reignited attention on Prentiss and the series. DocZach (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

There have been many changes since the last AfD. There are many more secondary sources from established outlets (E! Online, TODAY.com, CNN, Yahoo), there has been more news coverage in relation to events on the series (faked death, gray hair, departures and returns, relationships, and changes in series structure). The article itself carries (and has the potential to carry much more) information that is valuable and useful to many readers, especially those who wish to learn about Emily Prentiss from Criminal Minds. Redirecting her character once again to the list of characters would result in an obnoxiously long description of her, and anything short of that would not do justice to the coverage, notability, and attention this character has received. DocZach (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

While I would agree that there have made "many changes" since the last AfD, and there have been more secondary sources added, that does not itself equate to the requirements of independently reliable sources which establishing notability. There is enough source to verify that this fictional character exists, and that most of what is presented in the article is verify that they did occur. You mention a character arc, but I don't seen any reliable sources (through independent research or those provided in the article) which go to any depth to talk about anything significant about a character arc. Instead most focus on "she use to be X and now she is Y" or trivial other mentions about why something has changed, or that she went from a reoccurring role to being a regular on the show due to "fan demand". Those are facts more about the actress and not the character who was basically beholden to the whims of real life, instead of the character imposing it on the real people. Those are great for the Brewster article. TiggerJay (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the sources. Reliable, independent sources like ScreenRant, TODAY, and Collider do more than verify her existence—they analyze key aspects of her character, including her leadership as Unit Chief, her faked death arc, her multiple departures and re-appearances, her special appearances, her romances, and her role in sparking broader cultural conversations about representation and aging. Just because some of Paget Brewster’s decisions shaped some of the narrative doesn't erase the fact that the focus of these sources is also on Prentiss’s impact as a character and her resonance with audiences. These discussions are not trivial mentions—they demonstrate the significance of her character within and beyond the show, meeting both WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION. This article is 100% warranted on its own. DocZach (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, notable in fiction, plentiful sources. Not going to write a long-winded defense. It is what it is. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Criminal Minds characters#Current main characters. Appears to be mostly, if not entirely trivial coverage of the character. No objection to a split later if significant coverage can be found, but people here appear to be confused about the definition of WP:SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  So you think we should merge an entire article-length coverage with over 30 sources of a character into another article that already has a long list of characters? Did you even take the time to read any of the sources provided in this article? DocZach (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  WP:SIGCOV requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that address the subject in detail, not just in passing. Sources like ScreenRant, Collider, and TODAY provide in-depth analysis of Emily Prentiss’s narrative arcs, including her faked death, her return as Unit Chief due to fan demand, her romances, her appearance, and her evolution as a leader in the show. This is precisely the type of sustained, independent coverage that WP:SIGCOV defines as significant, and it establishes Prentiss’s clear notability as a standalone topic, making a merge inappropriate. DocZach (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see strong arguments on both sides, with no consensus forming. @DocZach: I strongly advise you to review WP:BLUDGEONING before you continue. Your lengthy, persistent, repetitive responses to every opposing view will not help sway the outcome your way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Understood. DocZach (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Restore Redirect per Rorshacma. There are mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs here, which fall short of WP:SIGCOV. I don't see enough substantially new source material to change the consensus from the previous AFD. I would support a merge as an WP:ATD, per Zxcvbnm. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I didn't read any of the commentary on this page, only the article. I compared it to the discussion of Catherine Willows a while back. I think there is enough coverage of the character's cultural impact outside of the show and that that coverage is properly sourced. It's not the strongest I've ever seen, but the question "Is it enough?" gets "Yes." Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Restore Redirect Οἶδα (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Criminal Minds characters#Current main characters. Despite the passionate arguing from fans the coverage here is all highly trivial. I found nothing in google books or scholar, and the best we have is plot synopsis and tabloid press. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  There are a total of 744 articles, books, and other sources involving Emily Prentiss on Google Scholar.

  https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,39&qsp=1&q=emily+prentiss+criminal+minds&qst=bb DocZach (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  If it matters, I'm not a fan of the show. I watched part of one season, and it annoyed me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Misplaced Pages:GHITS. Having a lot of hits is not an indicator of notability, especially since it's easily possible that many of those could be trivial mentions, plot recaps, or official material. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Simply having listings at G-Scholar isn't necessarily sufficient to establish notability and SIGCOV. The character is "mentioned" a lot, however, when looking at the quantity versus quality of information... Of the first page of results, only one might barely be considered "coverage" of Prentiss, since her actions are extensively quoted but little in the form of what would be considered secondary coverage of the character.... Beyond that, the rest includes: 1 marketing research of the shows posters, 3 are novelizations (2 books plus an article about TikTok non-cannon stories), 4 are trivial mentions (3 or less mentions in the entire article). TiggerJay (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The character may not be that notable, except for the fact that there are plenty of other characters with less notability where discussion about deleting their articles haven't even been brought up. SylviaSNA (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@SylviaSNA: "The nature of Misplaced Pages means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet." Οἶδα (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Οἶδα here in that simply justifying an article's existence on the basis of other characters with less notability existing isn't enough justification to keep the article. @SylviaSNA's argument is wrong in three parts: the character is indeed notable and is one of the lead characters of the show, many reliable sources cover the character herself, and the only scenario where it'd be appropriate to bring up WP:OTHERSTUFF is with the fact that the David Rossi article, a less notable character in Criminal Minds than Emily Prentiss, survived a deletion for nearly the same reason as this one. That's an exception in the OTHERSTUFF rule. DocZach (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I just read more on her, if she is the lead FBI, how is the not notable? I thought she was not in many episodes, except for that she is literally in the majority of episodes after Episode 9 season 2. I am gonna drop out of this conversation though since I clearly do not know enough about the character, and shouldn’t be here in the first place. SylviaSNA (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's difficult to see how consensus can be achieved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

*Oppose merge. Article looks good enough to keep a record of. Crafterstar (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• You were notified to participate in this discussion by DocZach . I can find no reason for why you in particular, a partially blocked sockpuppet, DocZach would reach out to vote in this discussion. Your only contribution to the article was a revert. Οἶδα (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Crafterstar has created a lot of articles on film and TV, Οἶδα, please do not try to undermine editors with whom you disagree. Liz 06:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  Appreciate the guidance Liz. Of course I apologise if your interpretation was that I tried to "undermine editors with whom disagree". However, that was entirely not my intention. I merely intended to inquire why they, specifically, were notified of the discussion. Why not the user who was reverted, Spinixster, as well? I am not sure why you are assuming their notification by DocZach was a result of them creating "a lot of articles on film and TV". All I could find at the time were Canadian politics articles, draft stubs for shows created in past years and them being listed as an inactive WikiProject MCU participant. It seemed a strange choice and resulted in a vague contribution of "Article looks good enough to keep a record of". I deliberately avoided using the word canvassing because I was assuming good faith. Οἶδα (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  I was blocked a while ago, but I successfully appealed my block. Your attempt to bring it up, (as if it is an automatic disqualifier), is honestly bad faith and I rather not hear of it again. please do not do that again. Crafterstar (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well that was not my suggestion and I am not going to pretend that it was. I of course apologise for offending you, and for distracting from my main concern. Because my concern was really about the arbitrary decision to notify you of all people. And your only contribution was the vague "Article looks good enough to keep a record of" which you could comment on any AfD discussion without further discussion. It is confusing and unsubstantive. If I was the main proponent of an article during a deletion discussion, in which I ferevently posted walls of text repeating the same arguments over and over to inflate my viewpoint, and then I drew in another editor who merely stacked a vote which aligned with my favor and their only rationale was a banal comment like that, I would wholly expect other editors to notice it and at least make mention it. My comment was merely an appeal for you to explain yourself, which you have now done. I never explicitly said you were canvassed because I assumed you decided to participate in this dicussion in good faith. And I believe TiggerJay has already commented below responding to your accusation that we were demanding you strike your vote so that we could "perma silence" you. I completely reject the notion and concur with their statement. Οἶδα (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per sustained coverage required for a page. If you need to have several arguments to delete it, it's probably strong enough to stand on its own. BarntToust 23:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Could you elaborate how precisely the article contains SIGCOV from reliable sources? As already mentioned by TiggerJay above, Brewster's notability does not automatically transfer to the character she plays. SIGCOV in shoddy infotainment sources like Screen Rant and Collider or Heavy.com or Yahoo Entertainment. An overwhelming amount of this article is sourced to Screen Rant, with other information being unsourced entirely. The more reliable sources cited in the article are focused on the actress, not the character. Οἶδα (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect What is missing from this article is substantial and significant coverage. Tweets from the actress aren't it. I am concerned about WP:CANVASSed comments here. Jontesta (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I notified just 2 people about this deletion discussion, both of whom I noticed while briefly reading over edit history have contributed to this article before. Per WP:INAPPNOTE, limited posting is appropriate to notify prior contributors about an ongoing deletion discussion.

  For transparency, the two individuals that I did notify on December 5 (multiple days after the first relisting) on user talk pages were: @Treybien2 and @Crafterstar. Only one of them, Crafterstar, has replied. I was unaware that he was partially blocked or a sockpuppet, I just briefly read over the edit history to try and get more people to provide their opinions on deleting this article, seeing as only one additional person had replied after the first relisting by that time.

  Now that I look back, Crafterstar didn't really contribute that much, I only assumed he did after seeing the amount of characters in his edits. I did not realize that it was a revert. For that, I apologize. I hope this clears things up. DocZach (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Am I supposed to apologise for my participation here? Crafterstar (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It may be appropriate for you to WP:STRIKE your !vote here if you believe you were specifically chosen to support DocZach's position, which on the surface it does appear. TiggerJay (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Just for the record, I did not ask him to vote in any specific way, nor did I even discuss with him beforehand about my view or his view. Please don't accuse me of things without evidence or reasoning. DocZach (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Transparently pinging those who I just suggested would be the APPNOTE compliant people (excluding those already involved here, maintenance bots, non-EC and IP editors):

Top by authorship: @(Oinkers42) @ThanatosApprentice @Pichpich

Top by net added bytes: @Frickative @Rusted AutoParts @Macapaka

Prior AfD participants: @Piotrus @Spinixster @Star Mississippi

All article talk page participants: @Pppery @Qwerfjkl @Bearsona

The editors pinged were based on the "top 10 listings" by xTools, but less than 10 because of rational exclusion reasons listed above. TiggerJay (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Acknolwdedging I was pinged here. I have nothing to say since my prior involvements were technical in nature and not an assessment of the merits of the article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure my bot editing the talk page justifies pinging me here. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Well said, I overlooked the (bot) appendage to your username/edit. TiggerJay (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. This is already a complex discussion and I don't feel I have anything to add as closer of prior AfD. Please do ping me if anything is needed or I missed something. Star Mississippi 02:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Source assessment table prepared by User:DocZach

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://screenrant.com/emily-prentiss-criminal-minds-season-6-fake-death/		Misplaced Pages deems Screen Rant a reliable source for entertainment topics per WP:RSPSS. It's status as marginally reliable is only present in that Screen Rant should not be used for "controversial statements of real persons."	The source discusses the character, Emily Prentiss, in detail. Even more, it is completely centered on her.	✔ Yes
https://www.tvguide.com/news/criminal-minds-emily-prentiss-1030746/		Misplaced Pages deems TV Guide to be a reliable source per WP:RSPSS.	The source discusses Emily Prentiss and her storyline in detail, with the article overwhelmingly focused on Prentiss.	✔ Yes
https://www.newsweek.com/criminal-minds-season-15-emily-prentiss-andrew-mendoza-bau-cbs-1486013		~ Newsweek is recommended to be used on a "case-by-case basis" for articles after 2013. It is rated marginally reliable, and the Misplaced Pages consensus recommends evaluating its usage on a case-by-case basis per WP:NEWSWEEK. Because the content of the specific article linked is not controversial, I believe it is appropriate to use in this context.	The article discusses Emily Prentiss directly and in detail.	~ Partial
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/love-fans-criminal-minds-star-030052108.html		Misplaced Pages deems Yahoo News to be a reliable source per WP:RSPSS.	The article discusses Emily Prentiss directly and in detail.	✔ Yes
https://www.tvinsider.com/734914/criminal-minds-prentiss-mendoza-paget-brewster/		TV Insider is a subsidiary of TV Guide, which Misplaced Pages recognizes as a reliable source per WP:RSPSS.	The article discusses Emily Prentiss directly and in detail.	✔ Yes
https://ew.com/article/2011/03/16/paget-brewster-criminal-minds-lauren/		Entertainment Weekly is recognized as a reliable source per WP:RSPSS.	The article discusses Emily Prentiss directly and in detail. It covers a major plot relating to her fake death, and her then-departure from the show.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• I believe this assessment is ignoring a few other policies that are relevant in showing why these sources aren't really significant coverage. I described most of this above already, but to resummarize:

-Per WP:VALNET: " In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability due to concerns over their content farming." While certain editorials can be used with notability established, they can only augment reception, and do not inherently provide notability themselves. The Screen Rant source doesn't really help much here, especially since this is not an editorial and basic plot recap info.

-Quick note: The Yahoo source is actually from CinemaBlend. Be aware that Yahoo tends to take stuff from other sources and republish them. That source is reliable, but figured I'd bring it up regardless. In any case, this isn't really an opinion piece, and falls under WP:PRIMARY given that this article is an interview with the actress of the character, and is addressing concerns of fans regarding the character, which is pretty standard fare coverage for any TV series.

-A lot of this is WP:ROUTINE coverage. Things like "Will x thing happen in x show" or "Actor teases show" are pretty common things that don't automatically give notability since every show experiences this kind of rudimentary coverage. Even something like the EW source falls under this (It's primarily just an "This actress is leaving the show" piece).

-I cite again my concerns that this article isn't really beating the WP:NOPAGE rationale. There's a lot of ROUTINE coverage and plot summary, but nothing significant that really shows how this character had an impact outside of her franchise or why she's notable in the first place. In a case like this, a merged article is more beneficial overall to preserve what relevant information exists without keeping a bloated, weak article separate from another article where this information can be more easily consumed by the reader alongside other relevant content. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You beat me to it but I'll air my same thoughts anyway. Screen Rant is a third-rate infotainment website to base practically an entire article around. They quickly churn out shoddy movie and tv recap and news articles that are patently and completely dictated by search engine optimization. I have noticed even more as of late that their content actually appears AI-generated. In my book, Screen Rant is not considered reliable, as the company states in their Terms of Use that the website is likely to be inaccurate:

"Valnet strives for accuracy in all that we write, aiming to be one of the most reliable sources of content on the web; however, the information on the Sites may contain errors or inaccuracies, and we do not make any warranty, representation or guarantee as to the accuracy of such information. You acknowledge that the Sites, and the information, data and materials contained on the Sites, may contain inaccuracies and errors, and we expressly exclude liability for any such inaccuracies or errors."

I understand that it is difficult to find sources for more specific details about characters like this but that does not mean an article should thus exist because weak, supposedly RS sources exist to fill those gaps. As you mentioned, this is rudimentary coverage. This should indicate to an editor that there is a significant lack of SIGCOV in more reliable sources. As I already alluded above, the more reliable sources cited in the article are focused on the actress, not the character. I appreciate your enthusiasm DocZach, but I feel it is just dishonest to characterise these sources as featuring in-depth coverage. Especially in these large tables you are posting, as if saying more lends more credibility your assertion. Even the Entertainment Weekly source reads mostly as being about Brewster herself and how she left the show. This is precisely what TiggerJay wrote about in their nomination. Articles for such characters lacking SIGCOV in more reliable sources belong on fandom websites. Not on Misplaced Pages. Οἶδα (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a detailed article solely focusing on the "top 8 moments" of a character in a series, or one extensively covering a plot involving the character is "rudimentary coverage." I think it's highly disingenuous to reject the fact that current Misplaced Pages consensus states that Screen Rant is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics and there are over 30 sources in this article, numerous of which come from sources recognized as reliable and in articles that extensively cover this character. I find it odd that out of all of the fictional character articles on Misplaced Pages, including one for nearly every character in Grey's Anatomy, there is such strong persistence to delete this article or merge it as if merging an article as long as this would be realistic for a list that already has a lot of content on it. DocZach (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

"Top 8 moments" is a listicle. "Extensively covering a plot involving the character" is in actuality just more repetition of basic plot recaps. This reply also just reads as a repetition of what you have already discussed with users above. I would prefer to not elongate this discussion more just to rehash the same reasoning. If you are suggesting building Misplaced Pages articles around references to content farm websites such as Screen Rant, Collider, CBR etc and their inane clickbait articles, as well as trivial articles like listicles from moderately more reliable sources such as TVGuide and TV Insider, and combined with articles from significantly more reliable sources such as Entertainment Weekly and CNN which contain no SIGCOV of the subject and instead focus on a related or peripheral topic, then I am going to have to politely disagree. This is only an indication that there is considerable lack of SIGCOV in quality reliable sources, and that you are scraping the bottom of the barrel in its absence. And then using these sources to create a needlessly bloated article in what I can only guess is intended to give the impression that there is greater credibility for it existing as a standalone article. Also, I am aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. The existence of other articles for minor TV characters, many of which were created 15 years ago, and their ability to linger undeleted/unmerged is actually an indication of neglect rather than the hypocrisy which you seem to be convinced exists by example of this discussion. Οἶδα (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I've struck my opposition above, since Tiggerjay and Οἶδα demanded it. And Οἶδα insinuating that my (partial) block (after I returned from a sockpuppet block) is enough to perma silence me. sheesh such bad faith requests. Crafterstar (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if you feel like it was ever demanded of you. I believe the entire time I said very specifically you can completely optionally elect to strike your vote (emphasis added) solely on the basis if you agree you were canvased. And furthermore on your talk page I shared that I believe you did nothing wrong while I disagree with your reasoning, that is also encouraged you DO NOT owe anyone an apology for contributing and later after Doc further brought up your prior account, that I shared your participation should have precious little to do with your prior issue and gave three reasons why I believe you should have a voice, and further suggested that the that matter was a red herring . If you do not believe you were the target of inappropriate canvasing, I whole heredity encourage you to NOT strike your !vote, but in all cases you still ought to have a voice and can comment. We can disagree both on the AfD and the canvassing issue. I can understand how the hashing out on if you were the target of canvasing might have made you felt targeted, harassed or bludgeoned about your vote and felt like you had to strike, and for that I apologize. It is the reason why I told Doc I would not further discuss the issue on your talk page, which I felt was inappropriate - rather he should hash that out either here or on my talk page. TiggerJay (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

don't worry about it. I overreacted. Oh well. I should not have commented here because my edit was a revert, and wasn't substantive. Crafterstar (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: After multiple sour experiences with fictional character AfDs, partly due to my inexperience during those times and/or multiple editors' insinstance in not hearing me out, I've generally not participated in them anymore unless the character is definitely non-notable. Since I was pinged, I'm just going to say I agree with those saying that the subject is not notable and that everyone else has taken the words out of my mouth and expressed it better than I could. I will not vote, however, in case things turn sour for me again. Spinixster (trout me!) 10:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Schwindt, Oriana (2016-07-21). "Paget Brewster Returns to 'Criminal Minds' for Multiple Episodes in Season 12". Variety. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
2. Gonzalez, Sandra (2016-08-30). "'Criminal Minds': Paget Brewster back for good". CNN. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
3. "Paget Brewster Is Returning to Criminal Minds (Yes, Again)". E! Online. 2016-02-10. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
4. France, Lisa Respers (2016-07-22). "Paget Brewster returning to 'Criminal Minds'". CNN. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
5. "Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Ending Explained: Does Emily Prentiss Survive?". IMDb. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
6. Dumaraog, Ana (2024-05-29). "Prentiss' Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Story Nods Back To Her Past, Teases Showrunner". ScreenRant. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
7. Dumaraog, Ana (2024-07-02). "Prentiss Is Hilariously High In Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Episode Clip". ScreenRant. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
8. "Paget Brewster Got Nostalgic About Her 'Criminal Minds' Run Ahead of 'Evolution' Season 2". Yahoo Life. 2024-06-01. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
9. Mondor, Brooke (2021-05-31). "The Prentiss Scene On Criminal Minds That Went Too Far". Looper. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
10. Spencer, Samuel (2020-02-06). "'Criminal Minds' Season 15: Will Prentiss Break Up With Mendoza?". Newsweek. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
11. "Criminal Minds' Paget Brewster Embraces Her Grays in New Photo". E! Online. 2022-08-09. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
12. "'Criminal Minds' fan recap: Paget Brewster returns as Emily Prentiss". Yahoo Entertainment. 2016-03-31. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
13. Mitovich, Matt Webb (2016-03-28). "Criminal Minds Boss: Prentiss' Visit Brings 'Laughs and Love' — 'The Timing Couldn't Have Been More Perfect'". TVLine. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
14. "Criminal Minds: Top 8 Prentiss Moments". TVGuide.com. Retrieved 2024-11-25.

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.