Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Dillon


 * 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. Merge discussion can happen on the article's talk page. v/r - TP 15:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Janet Dillon

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The IP editor has added three references to only two sentences of the lead. The article has too much plot and should be condensated if this article should be either kept or merged to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. It is full of fictional in-universe and plot and short of fact perspectives. I don't know if the article violates copyrights. Some people are totally dedicated to WikiProject Soap Operas and its talk page; they tend to delude themselves into believing what a good artice "is". The current sources may not be the right ones to choose; even there is no notability established as other soap dedicators think. There is no reception from the media, including magazine articles and journals. I'm not fully sure if this article is worth merging anymore; in fact, the destination article is full of less- or non-notable characters. --Gh87 (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that this editor nominated this article for deletion after I provided three reliable sources that demonstrate the character's notability., one of which discusses the character extensively. I have to believe that this is a bad-faith nomination, seeing as the nominator and I have exchanged disparaging words to each other. The editor has shown more and more that he or she doesn't understand WP:Notability, as seen in this discussion where he or she was called out by an administrator. A character article being full of plot and not having a reception section has nothing at all to do with whether or not the character is notable. Those are article building/formatting issues. Even now, the editor talks about "the current sources may not be the right ones to choose" when the sources (two of which are scholarly) clearly meet WP:Reliable sources requirements. As said, one discusses the character extensively. Of course they are "the right choices." 174.137.184.36 (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, no argument or rationale for deletion offered. If there is "too much plot," then trim it or add more real world context to balance it.  The same with in-universe perspective: WP:SOFIXIT.  Either this should be kept as a standalone article (which the references might support) or it should be merged to a character list.  In either case, deletion is not the proper outcome, and this AFD should not have been started per WP:ATD.  The nom's comments about soap opera article editors are inappropriate; one might more easily comment on the conduct and intent of an editor who has done nothing recently but mass-nominate soap opera-related articles for deletion without any attempt at correcting problems by editing or merging, etc., through normal editing and discussion, which tends towards disruption in that it is contrary to both deletion and editing policy, and the disparaging comments about the subject and its editors unfortunately suggest bad faith on his part.  Unsupported comments such as "The current sources may not be the right ones to choose" and "I don't know if the article violates copyrights" further tell us that the nom is assuming the worst but not doing any work to investigate or verify.  postdlf (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * merge if in is a seconadary character, keep if it is a major one. I deleted all unreferenced story line description: too much judgement on what and why was going on and what were the characters of the characters. Lorem Ip (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is becoming disruptive. This article is sufficiently sourced, with no valid reason for deletion provided. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 19:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are more sources out there for this character, some are already in place - it just needs the right editor to come along and expand it with the real world info available. Rain the One  BAM 20:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I feel like the character page, though it could be expanding upon, is a keep because Janet has been a vital character, for me, to certain characters on the canvas, from the TV Finale on 9/23. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 5:39PM 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. While you are certainly free to speak your mind, a more policy based rationale may benefit the discussion. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 01:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a notable character so the page shouldn't be deleted. Jester66 (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Would you consider stating how the character is notable, based on policy? Recommendations that neglect to state a policy based rationale are generally disregarded. Thanks and Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 01:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters: I do not believe that the cited sources within the article are evidence of significant coverage per the general notability guideline as they are short mentions that do not show reception or significance to suppose that the article can be more than a plot-only description of a fictional work. Having said that, they may be an indicator that the character might be notable, but with the current evidence I remain unconvinced of that and I believe that merging the content to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters until the sources fully support a stand-alone article is the more appropriate alternative. Jfgslo (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment/"Vote" This source is not a short mention and actually does show significance. Although I guess it depends on a person's personal definition of "short" or "significance," it's a pretty thorough analysis of the character in my opinion. I agree that the other two mentions are short, and I have corrected my statement above that said two of the sources were extensive. However, they also show significance and are about reception, and we really don't know how long the TV Guide mention is (other than maybe one page long). But based on whether or not this article can be a valid stand-alone article, I'd have to say I agree with you that it is best merged for now. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. Merge later, if the article cannot be significantly expanded with other third-party sources showing notability. Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 18 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.