Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elsa Mars

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Mars

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Reception/Legacy sources that was cited were trivial and wasn't talking about the character like the The New York Times, its all about the television show. WP:Before mostly came up were Bustle as a source, which is definitely unreliable from it looks. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Horror Story: Freak Show, sourcing is heavy but all trivial in nature. I will gladly re-evaluate it if new sources are brought to light, but I couldn't find anything myself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge per Zxcvbnm. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this topic, and WP:BEFORE only shows WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Glamour, ScreenRant, Bustle, The Atlantic, EW. There's more--this is all from the first page of the basic Google News search--really minimal effort on my part to find RS coverage, it just kinda all popped up. I have no idea whether merging is a better way of presenting this information, but it seems not, and clearly shouldn't be an AfD-enforced outcome given this variety of sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nom fails to note that Bustle is a case-by-case source per WP:RSP, which should indicate it's generally useful for fictional characters. I'm perplexed by the above descriptions of several of these sources as trivial mentions only--are we all using the same search engine here? Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have a decent reception section referenced with secondary sources and more have been found. Thus fullfills the basic requirements of WP:GNG/WP:WHYN, so I see no reason for and no benefit in deletion. Daranios (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with American Horror Story: Freak Show: Per Zxcvbnm. No independent SIGCOV found. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth do you conclude that This Atlantic article isn't independent SIGCOV? Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Or, for that matter, this earlier Atlantic article. Jclemens (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per the sources by Jclemens. They are independent, discuss the character at length and show clear notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens, this should easily pass GNG. I don't think the sources cited are trivial at all. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 20:45, 4 March 2024 (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.