Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbie McGrath


 * 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   keep. Article improved, even the nominator has switched over to the keep side.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Debbie McGrath

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

A 3-lines-long article about a fictional character. Contains no real world information expect actor's name and years of appearance. Fails notability per WP:FICTION and WP:SOAPS. Article was deleted after prod expired and revived after the deletion was contested. Magioladitis (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bloody strong keep. I've just this second restored this as a contested prod per WP:PROD. I would point out to the user this is perfectly acceptable and is part of the process, and that prod is not a contest. To my mind this article is needed to understand Damon Grant, an article I have just reworked after the above user prodded it. I would redirect it to a list, but a suitable list which would house the information does not as yet exist.  List of Brookside characters needs expansion before it can house the necessary information, and the information to expand it is currently being removed from Wikipedia through deletion. Hiding T 14:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd settle for a redirect to Damon Grant, but that doesn't really allow for an exploration of the character. Hiding T 14:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, further thought springs to mind that the best solution is merge and redirect to Damon and Debbie. Hiding T 14:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think this is a WP:HEY case. I didn't know that you were planning to improve the article since you didn't contest the prod as you did in another case. I just noticed a contest to the deletion. I'll withdraw this AfD even if I still believe it would be better if you create an appropriate article in your sandbox first. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed the prod, and so contested it after the deletion. It's not soi much that the article can be improved upon, I just don't feel the deletion is the answer for the problems this stub causes. The character has some greater notability through the plotline to which she is central, and a merge and redirect better suits ouor purpose and the reader's. Hiding T 15:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SOAPS. A search for the character does not revel any real world notability. The only mentions I found were on fan websites. If the information is needed to support another article the information should be merged into Damon and Debbie or Damon Grant. There is no need for a separate page on her as the information can easily be contained in one of the other two articles. The character is also covered in Gillian Kearney.  Gtstricky Talk or C 14:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read my reasoning up above. I'm stating that some sort of coverage of exactly this sort is necessary to form comprehensive coverage of both the soap opera Brookside and the notable character Damon Grant.  Further, the character appeared in another notable show, being Damon and Debbie.  The character is discussed in a number of reliable sources, the references at Damon Grant will attest to that. Also, please note we don;t delete per anything but editorial consensus.  I am asking you how we best fulfill our remit as per the five pillars.  To my mind that is best done through a merge and redirect.  If you agree, could you please strike out your delete comment, since it is not in keeping with a merge and redirect. Hiding T 15:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * keep if expanded, otherwise redirect to Damon Grant. I agree there isn't enough material here, and it does not explain that the role was significant. Now, I've never seen the series, and from what I've read I never want to, but I have tried to help Magioladites sort out the articles, working in a cooperative way with him despite a different general take on this sort of article. So I have carefully read the articles, and worked on the following basis. First, it's a very major series historically in the development of the genre, as is well explained in the main article. Consequently, the major characters of continuing important plot lines will probably be discussed in some detail in the various popular literature of the time--which is relatively inaccessible being pre-internet and poorly indexed. They therefore are appropriate to separate articles. A series of this nature is probably better defined by the characters than the episodes, so the character articles can be substantial.  For the minor characters, who were not the focus of major continuing plot lines, I redirected to the List of characters in Brookside, an article which needs expansion to say a little more than their name. If anyone ever writes the articles, justifying their notability, then they can be expanded. For the trivial ones with transient appearance, the projects guidelines say they should not even be redirected, and I agree. If anyone ever finds material to write articles showing some notability, they can be written. (There are a few works, like Shakespeare's plays, where every named character does have critical discussion over the centuries, but this will be quite rare for a work with a very large number of characters & I do not think applies to this series.)  Based on the remarkable array of good sources Hiding found for the Daemon G article, which required more than "looking at fan websites", he can possibly do the same on this. Whether it can be separate from that article depends on what he finds--I suppose it would depend on how distinctively she was characterised. and I wouldn't know that from the present article. Hiding, what do you expect to find? Is she presented just as a non-specific girlfriend character?   I've gone into some length here because I think it presents a middle-of-the road approach to dealing with these articles. I am not a strong inclusionist in this area--and, for that matter, neither is  Magioladitis a strong deletionist. (This has nothing to do with my interest on the subject. if I had my rathers,  these works would never have existed, and then we wouldn't have to deal with the articles.) DGG (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The character falls into a grey area. There's some coverage in reliable sources, but the character's notability is, dare I say it, "inherited" from being vital to notable plotlines of two highly regarded television shows.  That of Brookside and that of Damon and Debbie.  The latter is regarded by some as the first British spin off, not a great claim to fame, but one that has been commented upon.  The former was, during the period the character appeared, held to be influential within the television industry. The character also inherits notability from her relationship to the notable within the United Kingdom character of Damon Grant.  Given that there are three possible places to merge, my feeling is that we allow the stub "as is" to better inter-relate.  However, I grant that is not going to be the consensus option.  My preferred outcome, indeed where I posit the middle ground should be, is to merge and redirect to Damon and Debbie, where the information can better sit inside a "wrapper" of an article on a notable topic of which the character has a central role and information on whom affords a more comprehensive approach and allows a deeper understanding in our readers.  I too am not a strong inclusionist in this area, however Damon Grant still exerts some hold on national consciousness to the point that only last year a Member of Parliament mentioned the character to illustrate a point. Hiding T 15:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP:FICTION is just a proposal and SOAPS is just a guideline for members of some WikiProject. It should never have been prodded for failing a proposal in the first place. Prod is only for non-controversial deletion candidates and the reams of text on WT:FICT show that FICT is anything but non-controversial. --Pixelface (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Does the fact that all the useful information (actor's name, years of appearance) is already in List of Brookside characters change things or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, no sources, no notability. Graevemoore (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Brookside, Damon and Debbie and redirect. There's nothing either in the article or available in the most prevalent sources to suggest that the character is somehow notable independent of the works.  If there were some scholarly analysis or something about the subject that could be used to assert notability, than that would be different; however, no such material exists, or at least hasn't readily presented itself to me.  As such, I think the best course of action would be to merge it to the appropriate parent articles.  Celarnor Talk to me  19:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The array of sources available for Damon Grant indicates to me that material exists to expand this article. A merge discussion should take place at the relevant talk page. Catchpole (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What kind of merge can we perform in a 3-line-long article? Actor's name, character's name and years of appearance already exist in the list of characters. That she was Damon's girlfriend can be found in Damon's page. Is there anything else important in there? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The legal merge, to preserve the GFDL. Hiding T 17:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no valid reason to keep an unreferenced stub on a television character who has no notability as a topic outside of the TV show she was a part of. That's what character lists are for; the number of TV characters who actually merit their own independent articles is very slim indeed (and generally on the level of The Simpsons, Star Trek or Doctor Who, i.e. the show is so notable that its characters are actually household names even to people who've never seen the show at all.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the reasoning, don't see how deletion follows on from that though. Any reason why you don't agree that a merge and redirect to Damon and Debbie would be of use? That's what I had intended had I been given about 2 more hours. Hiding T 17:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on the rewrite, I will now suggest this be Merged Delete per well-formulated nomination and also what Bearcat said, with which I am in more or less complete agreement. Eusebeus (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to direct my comments to Bearcat to you as well, if you have the time. Hiding T 17:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Let Hiding take care of it. He knows what's best in this case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewritten

 * I've rewritten per sources I've managed to find. Hiding T 18:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep due to excellent re-write. Bravo!  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the rewrite which I think is sufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * After the changes I think we can give this article a chance. We can keep it and hope that more improvements will follow. The references given are a good start. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2008 (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.