Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spencer Reid

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Spencer Reid}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Spencer Reid}})

Largely not sourced, entirely plot summary. Character does not pass WP:GNG. From a search, lot of casting news, but that cannot sustain an article on a fictional character. Can redirect to the series or character article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. The evidence doesn't really support notability, per WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Criminal Minds at an alternative to deletion per nom. ✗plicit 23:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:

• Keep. I agree with the nominator that the article could use more sources and be restructured to not appear as a plot summary. However, that warrants editing and adding to the article, not deleting it. Spencer Reid is a notable figure, and he is frequently the topic of news articles. Here's just one example: https://www.today.com/popculture/dont-hold-your-breath-waiting-reid-seaver-hookup-criminal-minds-wbna41896074 DocZach (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• :That is a cast member interview and is not secondary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Is this an amazing, top notch quality, quality Wikipedia article? No, probably not. However, this doesn't mean that the subject is not notable enough for conclusion or that it needs to be deleted
• Redirect to Criminal Minds#Main, where he is already covered. The current article is nothing but extensive, overly detailed plot summaries, and lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources. Searches are not really showing significant coverage on the fictional character, rather than on actor or show as a whole, that would justify splitting him out from the already extensive coverage in the main article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.