Content deleted Content added
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
:::Your deletion rationale was the same in all your other AFDs, which also involved fictional characters from notable series, so why should a counter-rationale for keeping vary? What I described is standard operating procedure for content of this kind. It does not matter that an article does not ''currently'' have references so long as it is [[WP:V|verifi''able'']]. Nor does it ultimately matter whether there is third-party sourcing for every detail regarding a TV series we've already decided is notable, so long as reliance upon the primary sources does not venture into interpretation or synthesis. '''[[User:Postdlf|postdlf]]''' (''[[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]'') 22:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC) |
:::Your deletion rationale was the same in all your other AFDs, which also involved fictional characters from notable series, so why should a counter-rationale for keeping vary? What I described is standard operating procedure for content of this kind. It does not matter that an article does not ''currently'' have references so long as it is [[WP:V|verifi''able'']]. Nor does it ultimately matter whether there is third-party sourcing for every detail regarding a TV series we've already decided is notable, so long as reliance upon the primary sources does not venture into interpretation or synthesis. '''[[User:Postdlf|postdlf]]''' (''[[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]'') 22:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::The series is notable; the characters are fictional and not as notable as [[Erica Kane]] and her children and the supercouples, such as [[Greg Nelson and Jenny Gardner]] but should require notability establishments if you want them kept as individual articles forever. Look at [[Homer Simpson]]: full of plots and all-sided perspectives. What about [[Mark Dalton (All My Children)]]? His legacy was the failed accidentally-''incestual'' relationship with his half-sister Erica Kane and the drug use which destroyed him and his career; too bad there should be third-party sources, such as journals, magazines, print encyclopedias, and news articles, which are neglected in the article. The rest, as I think, cannot stand alone any longer. What are you proving? Why do references not matter to you, as you said that yourself? --[[User:Gh87|Gh87]] ([[User talk:Gh87|talk]]) 22:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC) |
::::The series is notable; the characters are fictional and not as notable as [[Erica Kane]] and her children and the supercouples, such as [[Greg Nelson and Jenny Gardner]] but should require notability establishments if you want them kept as individual articles forever. Look at [[Homer Simpson]]: full of plots and all-sided perspectives. What about [[Mark Dalton (All My Children)]]? His legacy was the failed accidentally-''incestual'' relationship with his half-sister Erica Kane and the drug use which destroyed him and his career; too bad there should be third-party sources, such as journals, magazines, print encyclopedias, and news articles, which are neglected in the article. The rest, as I think, cannot stand alone any longer. What are you proving? Why do references not matter to you, as you said that yourself? --[[User:Gh87|Gh87]] ([[User talk:Gh87|talk]]) 22:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::Whether references are currently within the article does not matter because we don't delete articles based on their current state (verifi''able'', not verif''ied''). If there are no references anywhere in existence, whether currently in the article or not, except for primary sources (i.e., the TV series itself), then that's a good reason for merging and redirecting into character lists in lieu of maintaining standalone articles for each character. '''[[User:Postdlf|postdlf]]''' (''[[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]'') 22: |
:::::Whether references are currently within the article does not matter because we don't delete articles based on their current state (verifi''able'', not verif''ied''). If there are no references anywhere in existence, whether currently in the article or not, except for primary sources (i.e., the TV series itself), then that's a good reason for merging and redirecting into character lists in lieu of maintaining standalone articles for each character. Which is what I said above, I did not say to maintain these as individual articles. '''[[User:Postdlf|postdlf]]''' (''[[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]'') 22:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:53, 11 October 2011
Fictional men of All My Children, volume 2
AfDs for this article:
- Samuel Woods (All My Children) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Tom Cudahy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Mark Dalton (All My Children) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Jeff Martin (All My Children) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Richie Novak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Damon Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Jake Martin (All My Children) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 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 a cancelled soap All My Children, especially from third-party sources. Speaking of sources, there are very little amount of sources cited right now, and third-party sources are absent. Each article is either overly detailed or full of plot and in-universes and empty of factual perspectives. Even List of All My Children miscellaneous characters cannot stand alone any longer with non- or less-notable characters, even when above articles would be redirected to there under consensus. I will vote later. --Gh87 (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: All of these articles are relevant and notable. They do not deserve to be deleted because they include information that is correct, sources that are reliable and up-to-date.149.4.206.16 (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- You have said the same thing in every AFD of soap characters. An article that I've nominated either doesn't have a reference, especially from the third-party sources, or has unreliable citations, especially from TV.com. By the way, I have given you the welcome message in your talk page; you are free to choose to whether create a username or stick to your anonymity. --Gh87 (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
- As said to the other IP user, I could say the same thing to you. --Gh87 (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your deletion rationale was the same in all your other AFDs, which also involved fictional characters from notable series, so why should a counter-rationale for keeping vary? What I described is standard operating procedure for content of this kind. It does not matter that an article does not currently have references so long as it is verifiable. Nor does it ultimately matter whether there is third-party sourcing for every detail regarding a TV series we've already decided is notable, so long as reliance upon the primary sources does not venture into interpretation or synthesis. postdlf (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- The series is notable; the characters are fictional and not as notable as Erica Kane and her children and the supercouples, such as Greg Nelson and Jenny Gardner but should require notability establishments if you want them kept as individual articles forever. Look at Homer Simpson: full of plots and all-sided perspectives. What about Mark Dalton (All My Children)? His legacy was the failed accidentally-incestual relationship with his half-sister Erica Kane and the drug use which destroyed him and his career; too bad there should be third-party sources, such as journals, magazines, print encyclopedias, and news articles, which are neglected in the article. The rest, as I think, cannot stand alone any longer. What are you proving? Why do references not matter to you, as you said that yourself? --Gh87 (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Whether references are currently within the article does not matter because we don't delete articles based on their current state (verifiable, not verified). If there are no references anywhere in existence, whether currently in the article or not, except for primary sources (i.e., the TV series itself), then that's a good reason for merging and redirecting into character lists in lieu of maintaining standalone articles for each character. Which is what I said above, I did not say to maintain these as individual articles. postdlf (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- The series is notable; the characters are fictional and not as notable as Erica Kane and her children and the supercouples, such as Greg Nelson and Jenny Gardner but should require notability establishments if you want them kept as individual articles forever. Look at Homer Simpson: full of plots and all-sided perspectives. What about Mark Dalton (All My Children)? His legacy was the failed accidentally-incestual relationship with his half-sister Erica Kane and the drug use which destroyed him and his career; too bad there should be third-party sources, such as journals, magazines, print encyclopedias, and news articles, which are neglected in the article. The rest, as I think, cannot stand alone any longer. What are you proving? Why do references not matter to you, as you said that yourself? --Gh87 (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your deletion rationale was the same in all your other AFDs, which also involved fictional characters from notable series, so why should a counter-rationale for keeping vary? What I described is standard operating procedure for content of this kind. It does not matter that an article does not currently have references so long as it is verifiable. Nor does it ultimately matter whether there is third-party sourcing for every detail regarding a TV series we've already decided is notable, so long as reliance upon the primary sources does not venture into interpretation or synthesis. postdlf (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- As said to the other IP user, I could say the same thing to you. --Gh87 (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)