Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Lowell (fiction)


 * 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 delete. "James Lowell (fiction)" isn't really a plausible search term. Jim lowell and James Lowell (As the World Turns) redirect to As the World Turns, so I think we are covered for possible search terms. James Lowell already redirects elsewhere.-- Kubigula (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

James Lowell (fiction)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Character is made up by originator of page. Character is minor with no notability or could be a different character entirely. I have done due diligence verifying character never existed on show only in a minor capacity. Nominate for speedy deletion.IrishLass0128 14:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC) *Delete While there was a Judge Jim Lowell in the '50's, I'm hard-pressed to find any evidence of a son named Jim. If not a hoax, NN.--Sethacus 16:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Whether he's actually a character on As the World Turns or not, there's nothing that indicates that this is at all noteworthy. Mandsford 15:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing to redirect to As The World Turns. We have an article on ATWT that states: "Judge Lowell's son Jim (Les Damon), also an attorney, would eventually tear his family apart by entering into an ill-fated adulterous affair with Chris Hughes's free-spirited sister Edith (Ruth Warrick). Judge Lowell was in hospital being treated for a heart attack and told Jim that Chris Hughes would be a junior partner in the family law firm.The affair even caused the Hughes family to be involved, Nancy urged Claire Lowell not to dissolve her marriage, Chris' knowledge of the Lowell's problems caused problems between him and Nancy. In the midst of the situation, Jim's estranged wife Claire, consulted Dr.Douglas Cassen about her headaches that were concerning her,and later began treatment for her an illness.Claire considered divorce but then refused Jim this request, Jim ultimately decided to leave Oakdale for a holiday in Florids, pending a finalised divorce from his wife, Claire so he could be with soulmate Edith, but Jim died soon after in a boating accident, causing a heartbroken Edith to leave town. The divorce and death also had a profound effect on Jim's daughter Ellen, who would propel many traumatic storylines in the 60's." Not sure if it deserves a standalone.--Sethacus 16:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've checked with historians about that and they couldn't find anything other than the Wikipedia article that states this person ever existed. These are people who live for soaps and ATWT particularly.  I also checked Soap Central (SC) and they have no knowledge of the character.  I also took the time to check the additional characters named and SC has no listing for them either.  I don't think "having another article" on Wikipedia shows validity of the character, no outside sources indicate he existed. I will, however, remove the hoax tag based on the above. IrishLass0128 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I apologize if my comment smacked of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, I myself took a look at Soap Central and found this and this. The first is a family tree of Judge Lowell, asserting that he did have a son named Jim, who was married to Claire. The second, Claire's bio, asserts pretty much everything mentioned in the Wiki article I cited. As I stated, I'm still unsure whether this deserves a standalone. The Lowells were an important part of the early history of the soap, but, as Jim's story is found elsewhere on Wiki, I'm just not sure of the importance of having the article vs. a delete vs. a delete and redirect.--Sethacus 19:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment ~ thanks for finding that stuff. I couldn't and at the time of nomination I did believe it to be inaccurate information because I checked the character bios and with people who have watched the show forever.  I do still think there is little to no need for this and notibility is in question.  So I do stand by my nomination, only the circumstances have changed.  I looked at the pages and it says Claire was Judge Lowell's wife, not Jimmy Lowell's.  It also says Jimmy Lowell changed his name to something entirely different.  Now the question becomes, "who's page is this?" IrishLass0128 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the Claire bio states that at the time of her death, she was living with her "father-in-law", Judge Lowell. To answer your 2nd question, that's another Jim Lowell altogether. Jimmy Lowell (aka Dan Stewart) was Tim Cole and Ellen Lowell's son, who was put up for adoption. The article here is about his uncle.--Sethacus 19:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A good look at the article just makes you scratch your head and then the history by its creator, blanking the warning and what not, indicates that even the person who created the page doesn't exactly know what they are doing. If you see date of birth and death, they are a year apart while there is also an age listed and a link to a real person who was born in the 1800s.  We, those who work on the soap projects, are trying to clean messes like this up but unnecessary creation just makes it harder to do so effectively.IrishLass0128 12:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is beguiling, to say the least. The user seems to have started with a different character, then changed their mind and went with this one. The user is a newbie (as you're well aware), but being new isn't grounds to delete the article. However, I do think you're missing my point. I'm not voting to keep the article. I do believe, as a plausible search term for ATWT fans, soap fans and soap historians, it should be deleted and redirected, and, actually, I've changed my mind on the redirect destination to History of As the World Turns (1956-1959). I'm also going to drop a line to Soapfan91, to get more input than just two people.--Sethacus 16:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do see that he's new and while that doesn't automatically constitute deletion of a page he's created, it seems that just adding a page and then vandalizing it by removing warnings should constitute something.  I'm fine with a redirect but who are we redirecting is the question at this time.  I was not missing your point, just addressing the non-sensicality of the page.  He's seemingly made his input by deleting the page for deletion box but I agree, he needs to speak up.  IrishLass0128 19:18, 16 October 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.