Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Harrington


 * 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 to delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Catherine Harrington

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fictional character who appeared in only 12 out of 514 episodes of the television series Peyton Place. LargoLarry (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Complete lack of sourcing (independent or otherwise). Fails WP:OR, other deficiencies (WP:N, WP:RS) notwithstanding. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —Sarilox (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Article meets all wikipedia guidelines. Sections are well referenced, the rest can be edited via WP:CLEANUP. Ikip (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * keep sources in article seem enough to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. It is well sourced, and thus meets the requirements for an article.   D r e a m Focus  23:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking non-trivial coverage independent of the series. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never gotten this argument. Why does coverage independent of X matter?  Is there some policy or guideline I'm missing? Hobit (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as apart of American televion history that has moved from in-universe to real-world coverage in reliable sources. Nice rescue. Nice sources. Good job.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep adequately sourced, as are the other articles below. It is not surprising that class TV attracts academic attention. I would be open to a merge nevertheless, with all the content intact, and the expectation of more to come.   DGG (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources provided consist: of a list of characters; biography of the author with a reference to one page (which admittedly I can't see on google books); and a book with essays on feminism in TV, which talks about the Catherine Harrington story in one paragraph (incidentally this ref is repeated). I don't think these sources consist of significant coverage. The main scholarly work is an essay about "Peyton Place and the Rise of the Single Girl". This source would be great in the main article talking about the influence and ideology of the series. At the moment it is in a fork from the main article, which few people are likely to stumble across, and in which the character gets a pretty brief mention. In terms of the WP:GNG criteria "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive", which is basically what we are interpreting here, I would say that we are much much closer to the trivial than we are to the exclusive. Quantpole (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. That's not the case here. The claim to a significant character in a notable series is a claim to notability here and is easily verified.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when did a claim to notability = notability? According to your rationale all significant characters in notable series are by default notable. Is that really what you mean? Quantpole (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2009 (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.
 * 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.