Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of All My Children, volume 1

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 redirect. I will not delete so that content can be merged by editors, but the redirect is binding.. causa sui (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional women of All My Children, volume 1[edit]

(View log)

The following articles lack notability establishments and insuffice amount of citations:

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

Images do not matter, especially since they are copyrighted and licensed. What is the point of keeping these above articles if the show is cancelled and characters have been insufficiently mentioned in third-party publications? Do I have to explain any further? --Gh87 (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You have a weird definition of WP:Notability. What does the show being cancelled have anything to do with whether or not a character is notable? It's not any different than a show naturally ending its run and the show/and or character still being notable afterward. Buffy the Vampire Slayer has been off the air for years and Buffy Summers is still notable. Likewise, Erica Kane will remain notable long after All My Children 's cancellation. Forever, really.

Characters not having been sufficiently mentioned in third-party publications is a valid reason to nominate a fictional character article for deletion. The show the character is a part of having been cancelled is not. And, anyway, All My Children will likely continue on the Internet. I'd think you know that by now, considering your current obsession with nominating All My Children articles for deletion. You act as though you can't simply redirect these articles to List of All My Children characters. When IPs or newbie-ish users revert you, you are supposed to revert them, report them and get the redirect protected. That simple. 110.88.209.200 (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All articles are notable, include correct information from valued sources and are notable enough to warrant individual articles.Casanova88 (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*UPDATE: Laurel Banning article has been copied to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters; shall we turn that article into a redirect page? --Gh87 (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Agreed: Laurel Banning should be turned into a redirect.Casanova88 (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Gh87 (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Donna Beck has been already copied by someone else to another article; it has turned into a redirect. --Gh87 (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE per policy, the edits were reverted back to normal. --Gh87 (talk) 08:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: None of the characters seem 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. Jfgslo (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the discussion is open and that the articles are unstruck, let's re-consider your arguments before you re-vote. --Gh87 (talk) 08:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the redirects mentioned as being done above have been undone as part of reparing cut-and-paste pavemoves/blanking during the AfD process. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Can't the nominator just withdraw the nomination if he or she has now decided that the articles should be redirected, just like nominations have been withdrawn once notability has been established? 174.137.184.36 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not in this case, no, as there was a !vote advocating deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge all as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all articles to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 09:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge and of course redirect. The argument that there isn't coverage enough for stand alone articles is reasonable, though I suspect it will change as the academic world covers this period of television more intensively. The argument that the show is not current, is a misunderstanding of the basic principle of an encyclopedia. WP is NOT a TV GUIDE; a TV guide lists current programs only. An encyclopedia covers the past also. (I agree that merges during the AfD greatly complicate discussion and were not a good idea.) DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - I've said this before and I'll say it again, just because the show has been cancelled, doesn't mean that the characters are no longer relevent. --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 22:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: While it doesn't matter if the show is canceled or not, the fact is, the articles do not meet general notability guideline. There aren't any reliable sources or attempts at establishing notability for the characters. Rocksey (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage outside the show's own universe. Per AfD/List of Redwall species, that's evidently not enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 16 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.