Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of All My Children, volume 2

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 merge and/or redirect to List of All My Children characters. As per previous AfDs on this subject, most of these articles are unsourced and fail WP:GNG. There is some evidence here that Brooke English may be independently notable, but as pointed out the current state of the article's sources does not appear to support this. Therefore, I suggest redirecting all except this one, which I will place a merge tag on. If such 3rd party sources are found, then the merge can be cancelled. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional women of All My Children, volume 2[edit]

(View log)

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

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

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

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

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

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

These above articles could not establish notabilities for their fictional characters of cancelled soap opera All My Children. Also, the entries must have resembled the pages of fan dedication websites to soap operas and been full of plots and fictional in-universes and empty of factual perspectives. Most of them were previously PRODded; they were contested for possibly the reasons that may become less reliable, such as "editing them later". In fact, soap operas of the United States have been less discussed recently than long ago. Some editors of Wikipedia are so dedicated to soap operas that they want soap-opera-related articles, such as them above and the "see also" notice, saved.

Recently, there have been editings of cut-and-paste in List of All My Children miscellaneous characters, while the AfD discussions were running; therefore, I prematurely closed those discussions after the cut-and-paste editings by other editor(s) took place. So as long as this AFD discussion is open until it is closed for results, there shall be NO (and I mean... no) cut-and-paste editings and redirects and any other actions during the timing of this AFD for the above articles. Instead, I demand that issues be discussed here, and I mean it! --Gh87 (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it is highly inappropriate to make demands of this nature. This is a community run by consensus. Please keep your personal opinions and futile assertions to yourself. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to an appropriate character list for the series. This is yet another example of content that should have been dealt with through normal editing and discussion rather than AFD. We document main and recurring characters for notable series as part of our coverage of those series, if only to list them and the actor and describe them in brief, regardless of whether the character itself merits a standalone article, and with editorial judgment employed as to whether it's also worthwhile to list characters who only appeared in one episode. Whether that is done in a standalone list or within the article on the series itself is purely a matter of space concerns, and a show that lasted for forty-one years (particularly one with the ensemble soap opera format) obviously is going to have too many characters for the parent article to incorporate. That the show is now canceled is completely irrelevant to any consideration here, so I don't know why Gh87 keeps mentioning that in all of his deletion noms related to this show. postdlf (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. None of these characters needs her own Wiki page, none of them pass WP:GNG. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brooke English and Myrtle Fargate. Gh87 has shown more of his or her inexperience by nominating a group of articles without sufficiently checking for their notability. Character articles should not be nominated in a group like this, where the ones that are notable may be overlooked (as is clearly the case judging by the two editors' "votes" before me). There are various reliable third-party sources discussing Brooke English and her portrayer. Not just trivial mentions either.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Finding these sources was as simple as searching under Brooke English All My Children. Likewise for Myrtle Fargate. Go figure. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the overly-detail storylines? How do one of use condensate the storylines? Also, you have brought up the sources; why can't you add them? --Gh87 (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The storyline sections are irrelevant to this discussion. That is a matter of following WP:PLOT. In other words, that is a formatting issue. We are talking about notability, and both of these characters are notable. I shouldn't have to add the sources to the article when I have provided them in this debate. The closing administrator should know not to delete these articles by having read this discussion. I don't have to fix these articles up just to save them. All I have to do is show notability. If they are deleted, even though this debate has shown they are notable, then that is what WP:Deletion review is for. Or recreation. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a recreation of a same article, you must need approval from administrators first. If they decline, then what's the point of recreating, which is possibly against policies? Do you intend to use WP:Deletion review, or what are you up to? And how do you show notability? Also, the storyline sections from an article of a fictional character do matter for the AfD, even when you don't believe so. Without fact perspectives, such as "Reception", and without fair use, the article would appear to plagiarize or violate copyrights. --Gh87 (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! Just how new are you to Wikipedia? An article can be recreated so long as it provides notability that second time around. There is no process of going through administrators to do so. Do you think I am some new, naive editor? Well, I'm not. My knowledge of guidelines and policies should have proved that to you by now. I may intend to use deletion review if the two articles I have provided notability for above are deleted. What the heck do you mean "how do you show notability"? You show notability by providing reliable third-party sources, something you have been citing in all these deletion debates. If you have been citing that without knowing exactly how notability is provided, then that is even more reason that you shouldn't be nominating any article for deletion.

No, the storyline sections do not matter in AfD. WP:Notability is what matters. Get your facts straight if you are going to attempt to direct me on something. Character articles are not supposed to be nominated for deletion based on how much plot they have. It's supposed to be about whether or not they are notable. Storyline and reception sections are a matter of building and formatting the article. Not a matter of whether the article should be deleted. And saying "Without fact perspectives, such as 'Reception', and without fair use, the article would appear to plagiarize or violate copyrights." is also a no 174.137.184.36 (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This AFD should not have been bundled. Note that All My Children was created around the character of Phoebe Tyler. When the show speaks of "all my children", they are referring to her descendants. While some are major characters, others are minor and would appropriately be merged. Based on the format of this AFD, I recommend the articles kept. If the articles were unbundled, my recommendation would differ. The fact that the show has been cancelled has no bearing on this discussion. Please note that the television show itself serves as sourcing for fictional character articles. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Phoebe Tyler Wallingford now sourced. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if the one source you provided isn't enough to establish notability, which could be argued (since Wikipedia typically wants multiple third-party sources showing notability), there are several books in the Further reading section listed as sources that the character is also discussed in. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for the catch on the Further reading section. That said, books are valid sources for establishing notability. Accordingly, nine new sources have been provided to sufficiently establish notability beyond that which already existed. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it all right to withdraw a bundled nomination and then re-nominate separately? --Gh87 (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I am unable to quote a policy which supports or prevents this, but in another bundled discussion the nominator withdrew a single recommendation using <strike> </strike> ; the discussion continued, and the closer noted the single withdrawal in their remarks. Dru of Id (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all or redirect all to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters: None of the characters seems to meet the general notability guideline as stand-alone subjects and the content of their articles is a a plot-only description of a fictional work in all of them. While I personally favor deletion, in order to generate consensus, I believe that redirection is acceptable. Jfgslo (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: The articles are almost completely plot oriented with a few fansite sources thrown in. There aren't any reliable outside source. None of them meet the general notability guidelines. Rocksey (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ALL The articles all focus on very notable characters. Now the writing can be improved but don't nominate them for deletion, instead nominate them for clean up. --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 22:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep two -- Brooke English and Myrtle Fargate. That anyone would claim that there aren't any reliable third-party sources for any of these characters after the above display of reliable third-party sources is baffling. I also concur that this AfD should not have been bundled for the reasons given above and is therefore invalid. Flyer22 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2011 (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.