Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Alamain


 * 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 redirect to List of Days of Our Lives characters (1990s). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Lawrence Alamain

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence this fictional character passes NFICTION/GNG. Pure WP:PLOT. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Lawrence Alamain was well known as a controversial villain on Days of Our Lives; the character raped a woman, and then (as happens sometimes in soap operas) became more popular following the assault. There are many contemporary newspaper stories about the character, including:
 * "'Days' Star Appalled at Reaction to Rapist Character" by Lydia Hirsch, Orlando Sun-Sentinel (Nov 28, 1991)
 * "Michael Sabatino: He's So Bad He's Good" by John M. Goudas, Tulsa World (May 5, 1991)
 * "Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know: Michael Sabatino enjoys playing villains like Lawrence Alamain" by Nancy M. Reichardt for United Feature Syndicate (Feb 10, 1991)
 * "Michael Sabatino Enjoying Bad-Boy Role on 'Days'" by Nancy M. Reihardt for Newspaper Enterprise Associate (NEA) (Jan 9, 1991)
 * "'Days of Our Lives' villain uses new tactic on prime-time special" by Donna Gable for Gannett News Service (Jan 10, 1992)
 * The character has also been analyzed in an academic work, Trash Culture: Popular Culture and the Great Tradition by Richard Keller Simon (University of California Press, 1999). "This is The White Devil in modern dress. Alamain is a brilliant combination of the murderous and powerful duke and the mocking and cynical malcontent, and Kimberly is a new version of the prostitute Vittoria who plays a dangerous game with him. Like the duke, Alamain kills almost casually and is vulnerable to the charms of a prostitute."
 * There's also coverage in the academic work Her Stories: Daytime Soap Opera and US Television History by Elana Levine (Duke University Press, 2020): "Days of Our Lives creative heads were told by NBC that stories of violence against women resulted in increased ratings, logic that contributed to the tale of ingenue Jennifer Horton's rape by Lawrence Alamain."
 * I think that's enough to show notability. I'll add these to the article in a "Further reading" section so that people who want to improve the article can use these sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to List of Days of Our Lives characters (1990s), no WP:NOTPLOT-failing stand-alone article necessary per WP:NOPAGE. No prejudice against recretion if someone actually wants to write a proper article on him, but it's already been 12 years where that hasn't been the case, so I am not confident this will happen. – sgeureka t•c 08:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:IMPATIENT says that an article shouldn't be deleted just because it hasn't been improved over a specific period of time: "The article shouldn't be deleted for its current status only because no one has improved it yet. Such deletion would prevent editors from improving it in the future." To establish notability, it's enough that reliable sources exist (WP:NEXIST) that could be used to improve the article. The sources listed above demonstrate notability; they're now listed in a Further reading section to help editors who want to improve it. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles also shouldn't be created before such a time where they can stand on their own. No rush works both ways. That argument only works for a topic that has no parent article structure because it would thus be completely removed from this site, which would be a negative to the encyclopedia. It does not work for fictional items that can be easily covered in their parent topic until such a time they can be split, or it can allow for the organization of information in such a way that it doesn't need to be split. TTN (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Sgeureka. The topic has not received the proper attention it needs to be stand alone, and something that has a parent article should indeed be applicable for removal after a certain amount of time. Building block sources can be placed on the talk page of the page to which it is redirected. TTN (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2020 (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.