Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Petrillo

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 -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Petrillo

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

There is a lack of sufficent third person information about the character not the the actress who plays a distinctive difference. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD was originally created on 5 September but the nominator did not properly complete the nomination by placing it on the day's AfD page. Completing nomination now. Redfarmer (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, main character on one of the most influential American television series in history, as well as two other series. A few potential book sources here. Plenty of relevant sources here about both the character and actress after you filter out some irrelevant news stories from 1949. Of interest is article pointing out that Getty's Petrillo was one of only three lead characters played by elderly actors at the time, the other two being Andy Griffith's Matlock and Angela Lansbury's Jessica Fletcher. There is also plenty of coverage of Petrillo being transferred to The Golden Palace and later Empty Nest and making a guest appearance on Blossom. Primary information on the character's traits can be sourced from the episodes themselves. Plenty of sources to expand into a nice article. Redfarmer (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, the source states that Getty was one of three actors portraying leading elderly characters, rather than elderly actors portraying roles. Getty was younger than both Bea Arthur and Betty White. Cindamuse (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You'll have to just delete every page on wikipedia that is about a fictional character. I am certain references can be found - it's only work to do it. Vinithehat (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - The sources supposedly exist but not one person has provided a noteworthy or worthy list to demonstrate notability. Why is nobody providing sources if the evidence is so overwhelming. The majority of fictional characters especially television have significant sources from third person sources that show their notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click on the "books" link after "Find Sources" and you'll find your list of sources, many of them reliable sources. You can see that mentioned at WP:BEFORE.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has been written about in thousands of reliable sources. Where else can we find stupid stuff like this except Wikipedia? It's not like we are going to run out of shelf space! EnabledDanger (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major character on a notable television series. And no shortage of space on Wikipedia, so no reason to delete this, nor is there anything to gain by doing so. Character was notable enough to be reused on two other notable shows as mentioned, as mentioned above, one as a major character on the Golden Palace, and the other a guest appearance on a very hit show Blossom. Not just the actress, but the actual fictional character. How more notable can a fictional character be? Dream Focus 18:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated is another actress from the same show, Blanche_Devereaux Dream Focus 18:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, Rose Nylund has been nominated too here. It looks like the nominator did all three in the same day. Redfarmer (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not again! As pointed out under the Blanche Devereaux nomination, these were HIGHLY significant characters, the stars of a hit TV show that ran for seven years in first run and forever in syndication. The characters were considered breakthrough television role models of older women [1]. I'll add a "significance" section later when I have time. These characters should never have been nominated for deletion, or once nominated they should have been Snow Kept. --MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2010 (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.