Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Montgomery


 * 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. DGG has accidentally voted twice, which leaves him the sole dissenter. The point that notability is not temporary is taken, but the question is whether the character has ever been notable. From the article, none of the sources appear particularly independent, nor do they seem to contain any analysis of the character. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Lily Montgomery

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a notable character suggest delete or merge to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters Wlmg (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pending — Either this article's subject, major or minor, is not notable, or her notability is not established. To prove its non-notability, this article has not improved into the depths of either Olivia Richards, Erica Kane, or Pauline Fowler since its creation.  In fact, its current version is the best of all and absent from real-world perspective: the casual editors either do not know this fictional character or do not have interest to improve this article .  However, this fictional character has suffered from autism spectrum disorder, according to the article itself; therefore, there may be some hints of notability.  Too bad the current news do not cover this fictional character.  The potential primary sources are periodicals of soap operas and self-published episodes; the third-party and independent sources should mention relatively this fictional character and autism spectrum disorder.  Unfortunately, without proper sources as of this state, this article cannot prove this fictional character's notability to either stand on its own or merge into List of All My Children miscellaneous characters.  And IMDB, the user-submitted website itself, is not reliable at any means except for self-references and self-publishings. --Gh87 (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)  This article should not be the substitute for websites that dedicate to soap operas and their entities; unfortunately, it only contains plot summary which is against what Wikipedia is not.  --Gh87 (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)  --Gh87 (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Delete: No evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline or that it can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work. I do not believe that merge is justified with only one reference. Jfgslo (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep very long-standing character of medium importance in a major show. That the article has not been improved is no reason for deletion.   DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Joseph Fox 01:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

 Delete - Lost of copyrighted websites copy/pasted from another website. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - This discussion has been relisted twice. What gives?  Anyway, no one knows this character, and the current news do not cover many fictional soap opera characters anymore.  Why is an article of this non-notable character created in the first place?  To substitute websites that dedicate soap operas?  The fact that she has autism spectrum disorder does not even help meet WP:GNG, even if it meets guidelines of WikiProject Soap Operas.  I don't know a soap opera dedicator who is an expert of the article's subject, and I don't even know some casual editor of Wikipedia who is an expert of this article's subject enough to improve the article itself.  She is not Erica Kane or Pauline Fowler; she should receive sufficient coverages from reliable periodicals and print materials, like Olivia Richards.  --Gh87 (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)  Why is it possible to preserve history and redirect to List of All My Children characters, while copyvio has become intact?  --Gh87 (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep What does not being in the current news have to do with it? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tv guide. We cover what was notable at any previous time, including the earlier history of the medium. As a significant character in a major fiction, there should be an article, or perhaps a part in a combination article--which however I am reluctant to combine because that's usually the prelude to gradually removing the information. That we have no current editor who wants to expand it is absurdly irrelevant--editors come and go, and , while they're here, they add information, and the information stays. That's how we have built, the encyclopedia from the beginning. There will always  be new hobbyists.   DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How is she significant aside from... that condition she has? Any ideas?  --Gh87 (talk) 08:52, 11 November 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.