Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Emily Prentiss (2nd nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jclemens (talk | contribs) at 17:14, 25 November 2024 (→Emily Prentiss: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:14, 25 November 2024 by Jclemens (talk | contribs) (→Emily Prentiss: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Emily Prentiss

AfDs for this article:

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

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)

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)
  • 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)
  • ARGUMENT FOR WHY THE ARTICLE SHOULD REMAIN
The Emily Prentiss article satisfies WP:GNG, WP:NFIC, and WP:NFILMCHAR for fictional characters. This article and recent improvements to it address prior concerns from last year's AfD, and it demonstrates the character's significance both inside and outside of the show, Criminal Minds.
----
A) Significant Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources
The article includes multiple secondary sources that provide coverage of Emily Prentiss beyond plot summaries. Examples include:
  1. Looper and Collider: Discuss her leadership roles, character development, and importance to the show’s dynamics.
  2. ScreenRant and The List: Analyze pivotal moments in her story, such as faking her death and her return to the team.
  3. E! Online and TODAY.com: Highlight how her character is discussed in broader cultural contexts, such as Paget Brewster’s decision to embrace her gray hair, which has been woven into the show.
  4. CNN and Yahoo: Covers on her leaving and returning on the show multiple times.
These sources go beyond simple mentions and delve into how Prentiss has been portrayed, her role in the show, and her impact on the series and viewers. I have already attached the references to both the article and this page.
----
B) Prominence as a Lead Character
  • Leadership Roles: Prentiss becomes Unit Chief in Season 12 and later Section Chief, making her one of the show’s most significant characters. She has been in the series since Season 2, and has been a main character throughout most of it.
  • Impact on the Series: Prentiss's arc includes some of the show’s most dramatic and memorable moments (e.g., her undercover mission, faking her death, and leading the BAU). These storylines, especially her faked death, have all been covered by reliable sources numerous times.
----
C) Reception and Real-World Discussion
  • Fan Demand: Her return to the show was largely driven by public outcry, which indicates her importance to the audience.
  • Brewster Herself: Discussions about representation in media, particularly Brewster’s portrayal and refusal to adhere to Hollywood norms, tie directly to her character’s ongoing relevance.
This kind of real-world analysis satisfies WP:NFIC and distinguishes Emily Prentiss from lesser-known characters who belong in a list or merged article.
----
D) RESPONDING TO ORIGINAL DELETION ARGUMENTS
Claim 1: “Most sources are primary”
This is no longer accurate. The article now cites numerous independent, secondary sources, including:
  • Analytical articles (Looper, Collider, ScreenRant).
  • Coverage from established entertainment outlets (E! Online, TODAY.com, CNN, Yahoo).
  • Reviews and discussions of key storylines involving Prentiss.
These sources show significant coverage of Emily Prentiss specifically, not just the show or Paget Brewster.
----
Claim 2: “A Google search doesn’t prove individual notability”
Recent searches reveal ample sources discussing Emily Prentiss’s character arc, leadership role, and real-world impact. The expanded article now demonstrates this with concrete examples and citations, countering this claim.
----
Claim 3: “Not worth a standalone article”
Emily Prentiss is one of the most prominent characters in Criminal Minds. Articles for similar characters, such as David Rossi (which is the other character of the series that has an article), have been maintained despite less coverage and screen presence. Prentiss’s depth, narrative significance, and real-world attention make her more than worthy of her own article.
----
Claim 4: “Should redirect to a list of characters”
Merging Emily Prentiss into a list would strip away the depth of analysis she receives in her standalone article. Her character arc and real-world significance cannot be adequately covered in a brief summary. The current article structure allows for a more nuanced exploration of her impact.
----
  • The article meets GNG by demonstrating significant independent coverage.
  • It incorporates real-world analysis, development, and reception, addressing prior critiques of being overly plot-focused.
  • The character is central to Criminal Minds and its revival, with a clear legacy and cultural relevance.
  • The rewritten article addresses all prior concerns and stands as a notable, well-sourced piece.
Deleting or merging this article would undermine the depth of coverage for one of the most significant characters in Criminal Minds. The current article satisfies all criteria for notability and has been improved significantly since the original deletion request. I am also continuing to improve it regularly, and would definitely appreciate help from others to do so. Deleting the article without any suggestion or discussion of improvement seems unproductive and antithetical to Misplaced Pages's policies and purpose.
----
DocZach (talk) 02:48, 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)
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)
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)
  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.
Categories: