Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pine Valley (All My Children) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Note that a "keep" close does not rule out a merge but that discussion will have to take place on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Pine Valley (All My Children)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced plot summary stuff, entirely in-universe, no out-of-universe notability. Last AFD was "no consensus" with only two WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS !votes and IMO should've been relisted. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - *sigh* I waited too long for this. Full of trivial source that won't help at all this topic's out-of-universe notability, yet I did not have the discussion reviewed because I nominate it out of those then-current circumstances: the show was going to be cancelled, and I used current state of the article as a reason for deletion. This time it is different: seriously, the fictional city should be generally about the city itself, not those trivia that I see right now. If deleted, then fixing the article won't make any difference. I don't see out-of-universe coverage about the fictional city of All My Children in search results in Google. I don't think the scholarly academics or periodical critics review this city either. --George Ho (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article is not only a valued source of information but it provides facts on an entire town on a 41-year-old television program. The deletion of this article would cause the loss of well-worked on knowledge. The current abuse of soap opera articles by certain members proves their insistent attempts to delete as much as they can. What needs to happen is for the article to be kept or redirected at the very least. There is no difference between Pine Valley and Gotham City and this is yet another abuse of knowledge and inability for editors to seek out proper sources to back information. Rather than rush to delete the hard work of many, many editors, why doesn't the nominator and deletion voters simply run a source check on a search engine. It takes time, days, weeks, but at least it preserves information. If there were no sources in an article called "Dog," these editors will go to great lengths to have it deleted rather than search for sources to prove that dogs exist. Simply make sure this article is kept and search for sources. It is simple as that. Casanova88 (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would this argument become nothing more than a mere WP:EFFORT? You argue as if those editors worked hard and information would be found else that may warrant a keep, don't you? Your argument is well-written, and I found this: . I hope this helps. --George Ho (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This could also help, but I added some more terms: . --George Ho (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes George, also this is a big job, so perhaps an expert could also be consulted with? Your source works and could be added and used as a source. I feel that this is an article worth keeping and not being deleted, as I stated above, no point in re-stating. Casanova88 (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I conquer would Casanova. Everything they've said, I agree with whole-heartedly. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 19:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, merge the first few paragraphs of the History section somewhere (e.g. the main TV article) if need be, the rest (i.e. 90 percent, including the two refs) are trivial in-universe or plot-related facts without any real-world relevance whatsoever. What would be needed are (1) where was all of this filmed and (2) how were the sets/buildings changed over the decades. That kind of information (WP:WAF) needs a couple of paragraphs at the most, not a full article ever. (Having worked with a lot of fiction related location info, I'd enjoy being disproven.) Also, let's please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. – sgeureka t•c 09:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a spinout article as defined in Writing about fiction. Notability can be easily demonstrated as evidenced by a Google Books search on "Pine Valley" "All My Children". The article needs to be improved, not deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Upon rereading the last two thirds of Writing about fiction, it should be clear that Pine Valley (All My Children) as a single fictional element (a town) is exactly what should not have been spun off into a separate article. On the other hand, renaming it into List of adresses in Pine Valley does not strike me as a particularly notable topic (and violates WP:NOT). The rest is just plot. – sgeureka t•c 07:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're confusing what the guideline says about "singular topic" with your "single element" wording. Pine Valley is not a singular topic; it consists of various topics. Spin-out articles about towns, cities and worlds are done all the time, such as the Gotham City example shown above or Gaia (Final Fantasy VII), and so on, so I don't see how you think the guideline doesn't support this. It very clearly says such topics "may lack demonstration of real-world coverage." And when it speaks of "singular topics," it mentions WP:Notability. Whether the topic of the fictional town Pine Valley is considered a singular topic or not, it is a notable topic, per the abundance of sources that discuss the town and its residents that can be found on Google Books. We are supposed to base a topic's notability on what sources cover it and how they cover it, not on the current state of its Wikipedia article. And for the record, pointing that similar stuff is on Wikipedia can be a valid argument, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as it is in this case. Just because it is often misused doesn't mean that it is without merit. So my "vote" is also Keep. And while I know that IPs are generally not trusted in AfDs or in general on Wikipedia, I want to point out that I am not any of the above "Keep vote" editors and also that I have always edited Wikipedia as only an IP. 23.20.110.18 (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see where you're coming from. E.g. is a great Google Books source that mentions Pine Valley a lot and could be used to develop the article to maybe even Good Article status. But a more appropriate article title would be Themes in All My Children then, not "Pine Valley" (I am working at the 30 kB A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire section at the moment, which as you see is not called "Westeros"). But the current "Pine Valley" article doesn't focus on the themes, it just focuses on dumping addresses and plot that don't need salvageing. A merger or deletion would enforce the necessary start from scratch better than keeping fancruft around. – sgeureka t•c 10:07, 24 February 2012 (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.