Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh


 * 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   delete. per CFORK. The argument for a merged article doesn't overcome individual notability. Spartaz Humbug! 05:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Procedural nomination per Deletion review/Log/2011 October 20 Courcelles 21:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I created the article, whose structure was based on the article John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean, which survived a deletion attempt although like Aaron and Jackson both those characters also have their own stand-alone articles. Like those two characters, Aaron and Jackson are a highly popular couple whose story was central to the programme for about 18 months, and generated some of the show's highest ratings. This article is essentially a WP:Content fork: my intention, before the article was inappropriately speedied, was to merge the relevant information from those two articles into this and to expand it; in general, it's better to have one article on a given topic than two, and there's more information than really should be in either of the two characters' articles. It's true that the Jackson character is dead, and his article probably can't be expanded much further, but the Aaron character is both long-running and continuing and his article will inevitably continue to grow. The two characters are inextricably linked by the nature of their storyline, and so we currently have the same information in both the characters' articles since only having it in one of their articles wouldn't work precisely because they are inextricably linked.  It seems far better, therefore, to place the information on their shared storyline into its own article, and keep the characters' articles more focused, which is why I created this article. The characters' storyline was a major one, possibly even the main one in 2010-2011; there is a following outside the serial, and no question of notability.  I'd also point out that the article is not complete: it stands as it was an hour or two after creation, and hasn't been edited since then.  Exploding Boy (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely unnecessary as a content fork. No evidence they are a super couple in sources to merit a joint article in addition to their own articles which already touch on the subject. Nobody is questioning notability of the characters just that this article is necessary and notable on its own. Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Both characters are independently notable, and both have extensive articles of their own which actually do a remarkably good job of not overlapping too much. This article can only serve to duplicate parts of those articles, which makes it a redundant content fork as defined by the guideline linked above. In addition, I'm not seeing much evidence of a following outside of the serial - everything is currently sourced to the same two sites, one dedicated to TV and the other a primary source, and more than half relate almost entirely to one character rather than both. Better sources obviously exist, but they don't come close to overriding the duplication concerns. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Bear in mind that the article was deleted very soon after it was created, and hasn't been edited since then. The idea is not to duplicate the existing articles, but to move the relevant information from them to this one. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.