Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional men of All My Children, volume 2


 * 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. v/r - TP 00:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Fictional men of All My Children, volume 2
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

These above articles could not establish notabilities for their fictional characters of a cancelled soap All My Children, especially from third-party sources. Speaking of sources, there are very little amount of sources cited right now, and third-party sources are absent. Each article is either overly detailed or full of plot and in-universes and empty of factual perspectives. Even List of All My Children miscellaneous characters cannot stand alone any longer with non- or less-notable characters, even when above articles would be redirected to there under consensus. I will vote later. --Gh87 (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: All of these articles are relevant and notable. They do not deserve to be deleted because they include information that is correct, sources that are reliable and up-to-date.149.4.206.16 (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You have said the same thing in every AFD of soap characters. An article that I've nominated either doesn't have a reference, especially from the third-party sources, or has unreliable citations, especially from TV.com.  By the way, I have given you the welcome message in your talk page; you are free to choose to whether create a username or stick to your anonymity.  --Gh87 (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to an appropriate character list for the series. This is yet another example of content that should have been dealt with through normal editing and discussion rather than AFD.  We document main and recurring characters for notable series as part of our coverage of those series, if only to list them and the actor and describe them in brief, regardless of whether the character itself merits a standalone article, and with editorial judgment employed as to whether it's also worthwhile to list characters who only appeared in one episode.  Whether that is done in a standalone list or within the article on the series itself is purely a matter of space concerns, and a show that lasted for forty-one years (particularly one with the ensemble soap opera format) obviously is going to have too many characters for the parent article to incorporate.  That the show is now canceled is completely irrelevant to any consideration here, so I don't know why Gh87 keeps mentioning that in all of his deletion noms related to this show.  postdlf (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As said to the other IP user, I could say the same thing to you. --Gh87 (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your deletion rationale was the same in all your other AFDs, which also involved fictional characters from notable series, so why should a counter-rationale for keeping vary? What I described is standard operating procedure for content of this kind.  It does not matter that an article does not currently have references so long as it is verifiable.  Nor does it ultimately matter whether there is third-party sourcing for every detail regarding a TV series we've already decided is notable, so long as reliance upon the primary sources does not venture into interpretation or synthesis.  postdlf (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The series is notable; the characters are fictional and not as notable as Erica Kane and her children and the supercouples, such as Greg Nelson and Jenny Gardner but should require notability establishments if you want them kept as individual articles forever. Look at Homer Simpson: full of plots and all-sided perspectives.  What about Mark Dalton (All My Children)?  His legacy was the failed accidentally-incestual relationship with his half-sister Erica Kane and the drug use which destroyed him and his career; too bad there should be third-party sources, such as journals, magazines, print encyclopedias, and news articles, which are neglected in the article.  The rest, as I think, cannot stand alone any longer.  What are you proving?  Why do references not matter to you, as you said that yourself?  --Gh87 (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether references are currently within the article does not matter because we don't delete articles based on their current state (verifiable, not verified). If there are no references anywhere in existence, whether currently in the article or not, except for primary sources (i.e., the TV series itself), then that's a good reason for merging and redirecting into character lists in lieu of maintaining standalone articles for each character.  Which is what I said above, I did not say to maintain these as individual articles.  postdlf (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge into AMC article. I'm a little wobbly on Jake Martin, but since Jamie Martin was an obvious deletion candidate I guess Jake would fall under the same heading.Ella Plantagenet (talk) 09:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This AFD should not have been bundled. While some are major characters, others are minor and would appropriately be merged. Based on the format of this AFD, I recommend the articles kept. If the articles were unbundled, my recommendation would differ. 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) 15:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it possible for me to withdraw and then immediately re-nominate individual articles separately? Your arguments have proven your sole dedication to soap operas and your concisiveness about this AfD.  I will be doing that soon without adding Oldafdmulti in talk pages.  --Gh87 (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)  Actually, if I withdraw, then I have to merge some articles into List of All My Children miscellaneous characters if you all soap dedicators approve.  --Gh87 (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: The soap is not cancelled it is being moved to a different media, the internet. Jake Martin is a main character on All My Children and his page should not be deleted, especially when linked to several other characters pages. Additionally I'm sure fans will just recreate another page for this character.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.24.119 (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Would Jake's role as the main character help keep that article? I have nominated other articles for the same reason: insufficient notability establishment, too much plot and fictional perspectives, and insufficient sources.  Also, when this AfD is resulted as no consensus, I will plan to merge some articles of the 1970s characters, such as Tom Cudahy and Mark Dalton, and then re-nominate some similar articles for individual AfD discussions.  Otherwise, if kept, then I will re-nominate all of them separately without knowing when the right time is.  Articles of fictional characters have potential be well-informative and fully perspective; too bad the more reliable sources for real-world perspectives are the publications from the past before the internet boom.  As the members of WikiProject Soap Operas said, the soap operas help the notabilities of fictional characters, but I think: just only soaps as source of notability for fictional characters won't help keep individual articles of characters OR list of characters, unless the administrators found arguments well-said enough to keep articles.  Even existance of fictional characters is insufficient enough to establish notability.  --Gh87 (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)  If you want to recreate the information of a character, an individual article may not be the best way per WP:RECREATE; how about a section in the "List of..."?  --Gh87 (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. With all due respect, you really need to read, review, and come to an understanding of the deletion policy. Additionally, please note that arbitrarily merging outside of consensus is inappropriate and disruptive. If you desire to merge, please make sure to follow the process for proposals. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 12:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: All My Children has not been cancelled anymore, it's going to the internet. Each one of these characters you have nominated have still very important ties to the canvas. Jester66 (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all or redirect all to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters: The fictional characters do not meet the general notability guideline and their articles are plot-only descriptions of a fictional work. As the majority of the content is not referenced, I believe that a merge is not warranted. In order to generate consensus, redirection is an acceptable alternative to deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Some/Redirect others - Sam Woods can be redirected to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters along with Damon Miller; as for the others they have much more of history on the show and are very notable. The writing can be improved, so instead of nominating them for deletion, tag each on for clean up.--Nk3play2 my buzz 22:10, 15 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.