Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte York Goldenblatt

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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte York Goldenblatt

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)

Fictional character, pure plot summary, mostly unreferenced (few references that exist are to the TV shop episodes). I've prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Fair enough. This TV series was a cultural phenomenon in the 2000s as it involved frank discussions of female sexuality. Frankly, very few editors pay attention to articles that are PROD'd and I didn't think the article should just disappear. Considering all of the many AFDs I see here every day concerning pop culture topics, I thought it was better to discuss a fictional character's notability in a deletion discussion. Maybe this should also be deletion sorted for Women subjects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This fictional character is the subject of multiple peer reviewed academic papers on the theme of sexuality. The first two examples that I easily found on the Wikipedia Library follow:

1. MARKLE, G. “Can Women Have Sex Like a Man?”: Sexual Scripts in Sex and the City. Sexuality & Culture, [s. l.], v. 12, n. 1, p. 45–57, 2008. DOI 10.1007/s12119-007-9019-1. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=qth&AN=31141837&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 12 dez. 2022.
2. BRASFIELD, R. Rereading: Sex and the City: Exposing the Hegemonic Feminist Narrative. Journal of Popular Film & Television, [s. l.], v. 34, n. 3, p. 130–139, 2006. DOI 10.3200/JPFT.34.3.130-139. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=24660428&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 12 dez. 2022.

There are dozens of mentions of the character in the two above each CT55555(talk) 23:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The first article has some discussion of her sex life, but I don't think it meets

WP:SIGCOV, she is not the main topic of the article, she is just one of the cases studied. Second one is similar. Most of the mentions are plot summaries, and what little analysis is limited to her sexual preferences and activities. I am not seeing how this can be used to save this article, although arguably the soruces could be used to add some context about the characters, errr, sexual activities to their short description in a list of characters I guess. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

She is mentioned 21 times in the first link and 33 in the second. To me this clearly meets the normal definition of significant coverage. Plus there are all the other academic sources that can be found on the Wikipedia library. This important quote from

WP:SIGCOV Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I think rejects your implication that she needs to be the main topic and surely dozens of mentions is "more than a trivial mention". CT55555(talk) 13:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Dozens of trivial mentions can't be added into significant coverage. What we need is at least a single paragraph, preferably several, of non-plot analysis. We don't have that. Cited sources mention her dozens of times, in the context of dozens of plot points. That's not enough. As for other sources, well,

WP:GOOGLETEST. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Pure plot summary (
  WP:OR; the character doesn't transcend the show unlike Carry Bradshaw. Sex_and_the_City#Charlotte_York already has a sizeable plot summary on the character (IMO already too large), so no need for or salvagable from this character article at this point. – sgeureka ^t•c
• Delete per
  WP:NOT#PLOT. All relevant info is already here: Sex and the City#Charlotte_York Radagast13 (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Radagast13, you only have one other edit from this past year, I'm curious what prompted you to weigh in on this AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I don't want to speak for Radagast, but he is active on Polish Wikipedia in deletion discussions on fiction topics, and this article is currently nominated for AfD there as well. And it's good for folks to offer their expertise in multiple projects, I am active in both English and Polish AfDs. Just my two cents. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filling me in, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. Can I express surprise that there is an article about a character on an American TV series from the 2000s on the Polish Wikipedia? I guess they aired the program there as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz American or English in general (Doctor Who, etc.) pop culture is globally popular, many such articles have numerous interwikis, although n 99% cases they are weaker than what we have here. Most stuff on pl wiki is sadly just a plot summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I'm somehow involved at Polish AfD, mostly advocating for deletion of some minor TV and anime characters. Usually when we delete an article about some supporting character (90% of decisions in this particular field are for deletion) I don't bother enwiki. This time I made an exception, as articles were similar (they often are) and the same arguments should apply. If it's somehow not welcome - tell me. I'm thinking of doing it again, but only in this very limited field. My view is that we should concentrate efforts on lists, and merge individual articles about less important characters. Radagast13 (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm advocating Keep as this is an important fictional character in American pop culture of the 2000s but I'm admittedly not bringing any new sourcs to this discussion. So, if the closer does decide that this article doesn't merit keeping around, please Redirect to Sex and the City#Charlotte York as the character name is a valid search term. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:ITSIMPORTANT. If we could find a reliable source that said, plainly, that she was "an important fictional character in American pop culture of the 2000s", I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

I know, I know, I'm not offering any evidence of notability here. I just wanted to weigh in, even if my opinion will be discounted. I'm kind of busy on the project and I don't have time to do the necessary research for this particular AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, though I wouldn't object to a redirect until someone is able to flesh out the existing content. I was able to review the second of the sources above, and while it's not wonderful, there's substantive character analysis in it. I also found this, which is explicitly about this character. That's already two sources, plus the first above that I haven't evaluated. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and I similarly wouldn't mind much if the page was redirected in the interim. One of the four primary characters in an enormously influential franchise where all four characters were constantly and deeply engaged with each other's (fictional) lives. This isn't like somebody was trying to fill a redlink on a template. This would be like deleting one of the Justice League member articles because one isn't up to snuff yet. No disagreement with the nominator's statement or rationale; they are quite correct that directly detailing sources are not present but based on links presented in this process, there's every reason to expect such detailing will be found and applied. BusterD (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (against my expectations) - I note the sources above. Book sources include Reading Sex and the city (over 40 index entries for "Charlotte York"); Sex and the city : kiss and tell (has a several-page chapter on the character); Sarah Jessica Parker, glam' in the city : biographie (3 pages specifically on the character); Sex and the city 2 : the stories, the fashion, the adventure (single page about the character specifically); and some commentary in The essential HBO reader. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but TNT and rewrite. Needs sources for confirmation of statements, rather than a wall of text. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - doubt I would be able to add any extra sources but a definite keep from me GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I would be curious how much the current title throws off searches. The character is far more well-known as Charlotte York, than her married name later in the series. To add to the sources provided above, there is Charlotte Chooses Her Choice: Liberal Feminism on Sex and the City and Jewish Performativity on Sex and the City. Both of these sources focus on York, but I do not think articles or sources that are more general about the series as a whole should not be discounted if York is a significant point of analysis. The article needs to be re-written but WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Aoba47 (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aoba47 If this is kept, which is not unlikely, do you think we should move the article? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support that move as I think Charlotte York is the

  WP:Common name for the character. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Weak Keep. IMO the two refs CT55555 provided are SIGCOV (I personally believe the analysis in the first ref here is decently detailed, and has some Content analysis and some critical commentary instead of pure plot recounting, e.g., The characters Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte, and Samantha, do not appear as role models, but as symbolic representations of ‘‘female subject positions’’, whom viewers can emulate in fantasy (Ang 1990) so IMHO probably meets
  WP:ATD but definitely not outright deletion. VickKiang (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2022 (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.