Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Corrigan


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Michelle Corrigan

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I am not seeing what makes this fictional character meet WP:GNG. Reception consists of some awards for the actress (not the fictional character; WP:NOTINHERITED) and then two quotes related to what the actress thought about the character she was playing. That could be perhaps merged to the actress article (Donnaleigh Bailey) and then this topic can be redirected to the List of former Doctors characters. WP:BEFORE does not show the character receiving any attention from scholars, all we have is a tabloid here and there, mostly about the actress, with a bit of plot summary. If someone is a fan of the show, they could consider copying content to https://doctors.fandom.com/wiki/Michelle_Corrigan Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, Television, Medicine,  and United Kingdom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep. No interpretation of the WP:GNG requires scholarly coverage, rather than popular coverage, of popular topics. BD2412  T 15:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Popular coverage needs to go beyond WP:NOTNEWS and meet WP:SIGCOV, neither seems the case here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It has a lot of media coverage and also none of this can be put in the "List of former characters" as that has a separate function. It does not need scholary coverage. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)
 * Keep. I also agree in part about the awards. The "Sexiest Female" ones have nothing to do with the character. I do think the article just meets WP:GNG though. It seems to have casting info, storyline development, and some reception. If the content was to be redirected though, it should go to List of Doctors characters (2005–2006). – JuneGloom07 Talk  21:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage from WP:RS in the article establishes notability. While scholarly coverage is good for an article, it isn't essential to be deemed notability. – Meena • 08:31, 13 December 2022 (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.