Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grissom/Sara Romance

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 delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grissom/Sara Romance

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Grissom/Sara Romance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable fancruft Vicarious 06:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strongest Possible Delete fanfic doesn't belong on Wikipedia, period. JuJube 06:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wiki is not a collection of subplots of a TV series. Ohconfucius 09:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per everyone else. Who cares? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do not delete CSI has been for a long time the number one show on American television and GSR is the first and only canonical relationship portrayed in it. It has caused much debate among fans and attention from the media. Moreover, having read the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page, it does not break any of the guidelines or rules that wikipedia use. All CSI communities and discussions talk about GSR, either for or against, and if they don't it's because the topic has been banned because it's so controversial. It is definitely relevant to the subject matter. Here it says that if you expect something to be in a real encyclopedia then it should be in wiki. If I were reading an encyclopedia that had a CSI entry but nothing about GSR, I'd think it would definitely be lacking. It is not a fanfic at all. It's canon CSI and there's no disputing that. It does, however, need a clean-up. The list needs to be edited so that someone who wasn't already in on what the quotes mean would understand it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hermit789 (talk • contribs).
• Delete far too minor and speculative, verges on original research and violates WP:FICT.-- danntm ^T _C 15:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fanfic can belong on Wikipedia if it passess WP:Notability -- multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial sources. This, however, is not fanfic. It's canon CSI (as noted above), but it still does not pass WP:N (the only sources I could find were fanfic websites and/or blogs). -- Black Falcon 18:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum: if any content is particularly relevant, it should be merged into the individual character articles. -- Black Falcon 18:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as rather OR-ish and non-notable outside of the individual characters. Merge anything important or relevant to the related character articles. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Abstain I dont know about it, so I wont comment on it. Cman 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FICT. (And Cman, stop wasting our time. If you have nothing to add, go elsewhere.) --Dhartung | Talk 22:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The question becomes whether this particular subplot of the series has any real world independently published articles about it. If the article contains ONLY plot elements, then it doesn't meet WP:NOT#IINFO's requirement that plot summaries include verifiable analysis or real world context. Now all that being said, I vaguely remember one or two TV mags having cover pictures and stories specifically about this fictional romance. If the article can cite some of those published articles, it would go a long way toward vindicating keeping it as a separate article. Dugwiki 23:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE. Relevent to CSI because the affair is official. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.71.16.48 (talk • contribs).
• Merge and redirect to CSI: Crime Scene Investigation per WP:FICT. Such a merger would be possible if the "timeline" from this article is deleted, as it should be. The "timeline" apparently consists of cryptic references to every scene in every episode in which the characters might be perceived as flirting with each other, which is both far too much detail for an encyclopedia article and also completely incomprehensible to non-viewers of this series. For example, among the entries is "2x03: Pickle scene." Once the timeline is gone, it will be easier to merge the remainder. As a second choice, and if necessary to avoid a "no consensus" result, my next recommendation would be to delete this article entirely. --Metropolitan90 23:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing my recommendation to delete per Ohconfucius, to avoid a "no consensus" result and because the timeline is just too embarrassing to allow to stick around. By "embarrassing", I mean that keeping a record of how they "exchange a flirty smile when Sara matches the paper to the printer" and Grissom "helps Sara with chess" makes the article look like a junior high school student's diary of a crush. --Metropolitan90 16:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE Significant pop culture fan following of a slowly developed relationship on the program. (For example, currently there are >1800 videos dedicated to this relationship on YouTube.) This is not fan fic, it is an explicitly demonstrated part of the program's canon. As previously mentioned, there have been magazine articles on this precise topic (including Galaxie Magazine July 2005 and TV Guide September 14, 2006's cover story). First choice is keep the article with a revised or eliminated timeline. Second choice, merge the two articles. Any article on the series which excluded mention of the only relationship between two major characters on the show would be incomplete and would misrepresent the nature of the show as being solely work-place focused.Abcadog 05:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article merely details the sexual tension present between Grissom and Sara in the TV series, and has nothing to do with fan fiction. Although the article could use some cleanup, AFD is not the cleanup department. The facts presented are verifiable as they are part of a published work (a tv series). For a similar article that is written better and, more importantly, is accepted by the community, see Kirk/Spock. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. First, as noted in previous comments, CSI itself clearly fits Wikipedia notability criteria. Second, "there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects", but there is "the issue of bias with deletion of verifiable material under the vague notion of it being 'unencylopedic'" to be concerned with. Third, Wikipedia is not paper, "and Wikipedians should take advantage of that fact." --Amanojyaku 09:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to reply, there are policies and guidelines though for handling articles about plot lines in fiction. WP:FICT and WP:NOT#IINFO both specify that for plot summaries, "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Thus while a plot summary can be a valid part of an article on a topic, it should not be the only aspect of the article. In addition, articles should also meet WP:V and WP:N standards which require multiple, independent, verifiable published references for verification and to establish proper notability of the subject of the article in question. In this case, the article hasn't yet provided those references.

Now mind you, I think it might be possible to correct those issues and save the article. The reason is because I think that there have been reliable independent real-word articles published specifically about this fictional romance. So if a few of those sources are cited in the article, and the article presents some real-world analysis of the romance (aside from just listing plot details) then it would I think satisfy all the requirements of WP:NOT, WP:N and WP:V. Dugwiki 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Disavian's comment above that "Although the article could use some cleanup, AFD is not the cleanup department." Why delete the article if all that would be needed to fix it up are some outside sources? Here's a start:

• Television love stories have gone down the tube, The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), February 14, 2002 Thursday Final Edition, Arts & Life; Pg. E8, 440 words, NOEL HOLSTON
• TELEVISION; Heart to heart; Checking in with prime-time's top valentines, The Boston Herald, February 14, 2007 Wednesday, ALL EDITIONS, THE EDGE; Pg. 033, 448 words, By AMY AMATANGELO
• TELEVISION; Small screen, big love; The TV couples we can't live without, The Boston Herald, October 15, 2006 Sunday, ALL EDITIONS, THE EDGE; Pg. 027, 563 words, By AMY AMATANGELO
• No. 1 'CSI' in underdog role, Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO), July 19, 2006 Wednesday, Final Edition, SPOTLIGHT; Pg. 2D, 776 words, Dusty Saunders, Rocky Mountain News, HOLLYWOOD
• Scene of the crime - George Eads on why there's no stopping the CSI juggernaut - Curious George, The Daily Telegraph (Australia), June 7, 2006 Wednesday, 7 days connect Edition, FEATURES; 7 Days / Seven Days; Pg. 7, 944 words, SARRAH LE MARQUAND
• TELEVISION; What makes a star shine? It takes more than ratings, The Boston Herald, December 18, 2005 Sunday, ALL EDITIONS, THE EDGE; Pg. 037, 615 words, By AMY AMATANGELO
• Science, acting make CSI a hit, Windsor Star (Ontario), November 20, 2003 Thursday Final Edition, ENTERTAINMENT; Pg. C7, 539 words, Noel Holston Newsday

--Amanojyaku 20:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, cited sources do excellently well to establish the notability of CSI itself, and of a general article about television romance, but this would be a better fit under such an article and does not require its own. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Having now read the Kirk/Spock article (which is apparently well accepted and non-controversial) I'm not even sure why we're having this discussion as the topics are quite comparable. If anything, CSI has now been on the air for four years longer than Star Trek was, and the relationship between the two characters is actually show canon, and not just a fan phenomenon. (I did not know the origin of the term "slash" and was very interested to learn it, btw.) Both shows have had a significant impact on popular culture, and each features a relationship (either among the fan following or within the context of the series) between two of the lead characters which has developed a life of its own and for which there is a widely used descriptive term. If the Star Trek article, which I found interesting and informative, is appropriate on Wikipedia, then so should be the article on GSR. I've made some fairly significant edits to the material, in particular replacing the timeline with a narrative of the relationship. Abcadog 05:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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.