Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional men 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 merge to List of All My Children characters (or List of All My Children miscellaneous characters, whichever is better). There are quite a number of Keeps here but absolutely none of them give any policy-based reason why such an effectively unsourced article should not be where it belongs; i.e. in a character list. There appear to be a lot more articles on characters from this series that should be similarly merged. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional men of All My Children, volume 1

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

This article lacks notability establishment and third-party sources. Written like a biography of a fictional character of cancelled soap All My Children. Also, the content may have plagiarized from other websites, unless I'm wrong. Self-publications are insufficient to have this article stand on its own; at least they help per WP:SELFPUB Same reason for another article below:

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

~~--Gh87 (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)~~ They were previously PRODded; removed by IP editor who claimed that they are "notable". Still, even TV.com and publications that are soap-oriented are insufficient; even TV.com is user-submitted. ~~--Gh87 (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)~~ As Jfgslo said, the articles are fully plot-oriented for fictional characters. I vote delete all. --Gh87 (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All articles mentioned should be kept due to their significance and valuable information. They are well-known and exhibit enough notability to remain as individual articles.Casanova88 (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: The characters do not meet the general notability guideline and their unreferenced articles are plot-only descriptions of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All of these articles are about noteworthy and popular characters that served a major purpose to the show and have a large following. They are relevant and well-known and include correct information in the articles that is notable for them to remain as individual articles.149.4.206.16 (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:N or any other "Wikipedia:" articles? These articles either are not cited or have no significance from the third-party sources. Maybe you are so devoted to soap operas and have little knowledge about how Wikipedia works, unless I'm wrong as you want to prove. --Gh87 (talk) 17:28, 11 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) 16:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the consensus? Also, I have seen the similar arguments in other AFDs of soap-related articles. Why would you post the same argument that claims "notability", "reliability" and "significance" that the articles could not establish at this time? Are unreferenced character background and plot enough to you? Also, articles should avoid copyright violations; I'm uncertain about the articles' writings. List of All My Children miscellaneous characters#Phil Brent has been tagged for violating copyrights; should you remove the tag without proper reasoning? Should you contact the administrators about this? --Gh87 (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on whether there is a copyvio because I haven't investigated that, as it's a separate issue from whether these subjects should be covered in some way on WP. If there is a copyvio, it should be removed by removing the copyvio text from the article(s) if possible, or the article deleted if the copyvio is too substantial a part of its history.
Re: "Have you read the consensus", I obviously disagree with your rationale and that of the other two delete !voters (little more than WP:VAGUEWAVEs, to be fair), and my comments and arguments are going to factor into whatever consensus this AFD is closed with. My comments, further, are more in line with the consensus repeatedly demonstrated for content of this kind, and what I describe is standard operating procedure for TV series characters and lists. It doesn't matter whether it's unreferenced at this time; the standard is whether it is verifiable, not verified. postdlf (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These characters you have nominated have still very important ties to the canvas and the pages must remain intact. Jester66 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AADD about arguments. Are the "canvas", which must be clarified while I was reading the definitions, and the awareness from soap dedicators legitimate enough to have these articles kept? --Gh87 (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge no argument against merging has been given. Individual pieces of content in an article are not subject to WP:N; plot-only refers to total Wikipedia coverage, not individual break-out articles. And the assertion that publications dealing with soap are not RSs is as nonsensical as saying that publication dealing with politics are not usable sources for politicians--it's the old claim that only material in general newspapers and magazines count, which would reduce Wikipedia to a very much abridged encyclopedia . The basic principle of coverage is the basic principle of Wikipedia: a comprehensive encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : These characters were and still are very important parts of the, whether it has been canelled or not. Just because the series has been cancelled doesn't mean they are no longer relevant. And if the shows will be airing online in early 2012, then why go through the trouble of deleting all these pages when viewers that use wikipedia will come back to look at the articles. Those people who actually edit will start and edit war and it will be one big mess, one day the article is there, another day it is a redirect. I think the articles should stay.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 22:00, 15 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.