Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Lavery


 * 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   no consensus. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Annie Lavery

 * – ( View AfD View log )

So many issues for this article. This article could not establish notability from third-party sources, the content may have violated WP:CP by plagiarizing from other websites, and there are no references. Even self-published materials, such as hundreds of episodes and scripts, are insufficient to have this article stand on its own. Previously PRODded; challenged by IP editor who could not at this time improve this article and claimed that this fictional character is "notable". Actually, the cancelled soap All My Children is notable from many sources; is this character notable, as well? --Gh87 (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC) I vote delete as well. --Gh87 (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment this article has existed since 2006, although that doesn't meen that it should be kept. L888Y5 (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A very well-documented non-existent person. Can WP refer to Soap Central, I wonder? or Soaps She Knows? She's documented like a real human. I know IMDB isn't on. Guess that's a Delete but it does feel like being grandad telling off the kids for, er, being alive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article sites correct and useful information pertaining to an historic and notable character. Deleting the article should not be in question.Casanova88 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you prove this character's "notability", especially from the third-party sources? By the way, you have ignored instructions of WP:AFD by removing the AfD banner. It is not the same as WP:PROD  --Gh87 (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize about the removal of the banner. The character of Annie has been listed in various books pertaining to AMC (and published by ABC) and also in magazines.Casanova88 (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline, the article is completely unreferenced and it is a plot-only description of a fictional work, unsuitable for Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: This character is incredibly notable and well known within and outside the soap world. Deleting the article would be a travesty and an intent to remove the information on purpose.149.4.206.16 (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major character, sufficiently sourced. The fact that the show has been cancelled has no bearing on this discussion. Please note that the television show itself serves as sourcing for fictional character articles. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 15:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Annie Lavery had a pivotal part of AMC history, and yes, the show no longer airs on television, but it is transferring online as of January 2012. Annie had a big part of her years on AMC, interacting with many of the notable characters of the series. It is well sourced, in my view. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 5:45PM 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep For this one, I'm going to argue the fundamental issue: a principal character of a famous show or any other fictional work is an appropriate subject for an article . (In the case of a serial show, this refers to a principal characters over multiple seasons, as here, not of a particular episode)  The reason for using the criterion I suggest is that it makes sense. Trying to fit the GNG to individual instances of this sort is an exercise in futility.    DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest redirecting the article to point to List of All My Children characters and adding a short (or long) entry to that page. This character fails the WP:GNG, but should probably still be mentioned in the list article. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:44, 16 October 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.