Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Quartermaine and Monica Bard


 * 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 to General Hospital. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  12:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Alan Quartermaine and Monica Bard

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

They're a couple in a soap opera. Both actors have their own articles. Both characters have their own articles. What is this huge wedge of plot summary doing occupying its own article?  Eliminator JR Talk  20:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummm...because otherwise there would be no articles for Category:Supercouples? Super delete and delete the other 20+ articles about soap opera couples. Clarityfiend 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. Chris 22:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. If there's anything in the long (really long) plot summary that's significant, and not already covered in the characters' articles, move it there. Deor 01:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or Merge with the individual characters. Wikipedia is not Soap Opera Digest. DarkAudit 05:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or Merge per above.--Alabamaboy 20:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or Merge per above, let's delete them all--Migospia †♥ 01:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yet another iconic couple that shouldn't be deleted from Wikipedia. Migospia, I get that you're angry that your soap couple article was nominated for deletion, but that doesn't mean that "Oh, to heck with all of the other soap couples, they should all be deleted from Wikipedia as well."


 * Furthermore, I really don't get this notion that "Soap couple articles should be deleted from Wikipedia, unless they are Luke and Laura", or that "they should all be mentioned in the character's individual articles, but shouldn't have their own articles." I say that I don't get such a notion due to the fact that Wikipedia has nothing against soap couple artices, as long as the couple is notable. Well, all of these couples are notable. And as I have mentioned before elsewhere here, I am a part of WikiProject Soap Operas, and we only recently started this project, so of course these soap couple articles aren't fixed up yet, but all of these articles are tagged within the scope of Wikipedia: WikiProject Soap Operas, meaning that we will get to them. Just because these articles aren't fixed up yet, doesn't mean that they won't be fixed up, and it doesn't mean that they should be deleted from Wikipedia either. I'm utterly against any "Remove all soap opera couple articles from Wikipedia" notion. The only couples that should be removed are ones that fail notability. If they don't fail, then they should NOT be removed from Wikipedia.


 * I may not feel that there needs to be an article dedicated to weapons from a show and that it should rather be mentioned in that show's article, but that doesn't mean that it's not right in being a stand-alone article. It's the same for soap couple articles. Just because some editors may feel that no couple should have their own article on Wikipedia doesn't mean that the article is any less valid in remaining on Wikipedia, only notability determines that. And I must contact all participants of WikiProject Soap Operas on this matter of articles we are currently working on being nominated for deletion before we even have the time to improve them.


 * The reason these articles aren't mentioned in their character's articles is because the character article should be focused more so on that character, and not on their romance, which means the plot summary would be limited in also tackling the issue of the character's notable romance, thus is why an article specifically about that couple's romance and impact may be created. I cannot improve all of these soap couple articles by myself in such a short amount of time. Therefore, I ask for any editor here to hold off on nominating such a supercouple article for deletion when it can clearly be improved. Deletion is not the answer of such supercouples. Clean-up is. Flyer22 13:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * However, I do state that this duplicate article should be deleted: Alan and Monica At least one of these articles on Alan and Monica should remain to be improved. Flyer22 13:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Alan and Monica were a major couple for 30 years. They were a major part of GH when the show was the talk of the nation, and their stories helped saved the show from cancellation in the late 70's, before Luke Spencer even existed. They are not just some random soap couple like the millions who have been around over the years. They were iconic, and I don't think a page about their relationship is any kind of travesty. --JamesB3 15:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Alan and Monica are definitely a notable couple on General Hospital, but the current state of this article is appalling. If/when someone wants to write a real article that has real-world references and is more than just a plot summary, this article can be re-established. --Elonka 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh you should not get angry, the reason is I was told that Wiki is not the place for soap opera couples not matter anything so that means ALL go, peace--Migospia †♥ 17:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Supercouples should not be deleted at all. For those who are trying to learn about a certain soap opera, these pages help the viewer in depth about a certain relationship. I don't see why there should be any reason for deletion. Miss Burkle 17:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The reason for deletion is very simple - the article completely fails Wikipedia guidelines, most notably WP:NOT.  Eliminator JR Talk  18:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and delete - like I've been saying all along, these couple articles are repetitive and the info should be merged into the characters articles-- Char leen mer ced  Talk  07:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would argue that these couple articles don't have to be repetitive. A character's article is not supposed to have a significant chunk of his or her article dedicated to their notable romance, which is what it would take to address such notable couples. Plot summary is supposed to be limited, therefore plot concerning the notable couple's romance would also be limited due to the fact that the plot summary itself should be kept short. Thus which is just one of the reasons a notable couple should be given their own article. One can't sum up Alan and Monica's romance in a few short words without it failing to have reason to be mentioned at all, if that were the case. Alan's article, as well as Monica's article should focus more on the life of those characters, not their romance, as we all know. An article about Alan and Monica's romance should be about that couple, of course, their creation, their real-word impact, and notable details in which would appear out of place in tackling all within their individual character articles. For example, adding the detail of what the J.R. and Babe article encompasses to the J.R. Chandler article and the Babe Carey article would seem excessive, it would also be redundant to have all that is mentioned in the J.R. and Babe article, such as their Cultural Impact, be in both articles. The J.R. and Babe article is different enough from their individual character articles that it's not, at least not in true-to-form, redundant, and that is what the participants in bettering such soap couple articles aim for.Flyer22 15:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If it were the case where the article already had extensive references and proof of cultural impact, then it might make sense to have the debate about whether or not the information should be in the individual character articles or the couple's article. But in this particular case, all we have is an article that is 95%+ storyline.  In which case the article shouldn't exist at all. Wikipedia is not here to present storylines, it's here to present information in an encyclopedic context.  And right now this article just doesn't have anything like that. --Elonka 19:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Trying to get some time to get around to fixing up this article
Of course, if I don't get around to it soon, then delete, as I will see about having the article re-created at a later time, with it fixed up, of course. Flyer22 01:50, 9 June 2007 (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.