Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose D'Angelo


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Rose D'Angelo
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unremarkable fictional person John Collier (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete--unremarkable, despite the million words in that article. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete absolutely irrelevant to the non-fan. JuJube (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - As the World Turns has run for 13 thousand episodes and 52 years. A minor character from this show is more notable than a minor character from an ordinary show. Article like this are what make wikipedia great. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see your logic. Minor characters are minor characters regardless of the longevity of the show they're from. And I'd also vehemently disagree with the claim that articles like this make Wikipedia great; I'd argue quite the opposite. JuJube (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge what you're saying, but I'm not changing my !vote. We had 'List of minor characters from The Simpsons' recently. We need to achieve some kind of consensus. I don't believe that 'subject of multiple non-trivial media reports' is really the standard (although, by the way, I believe that this minor character would satisfy that standard, if you were to look over the last 52 years' worth of electronic and print media in the US). The fact that a TV show is widely published can ipso facto give its content notability. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Very weak Keep A relatively subsidiary charactery in a major complicated series can have an important role in the continuity, and clarity for the readers may be greatly helped by presenting the character in a separate article.  However, this article is written in such a over-detailed way it doesn't  really accomplish much in the way or clarity. If it's rewritten, it might be keepable. (I assume for the sake of argument that it is possible to accomplish a clear concise account of the story.) DGG (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just what Wikipedia doesn't need: yet another long, rambling, unreferenced wall-of-text plot summary. There is no assertion or demonstration of notability in the real world, or even within the limits of the soap opera. Reyk  YO!  21:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't meet the GNG. RMHED (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom lacks real world notability. JBsupreme (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2008 (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.