Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Purcell


 * 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   no consensus. Wizardman 21:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sharon Purcell

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Minor character played by an insignificant actress (who doesn't even have a Wikipedia article) in only 6 out of 514 episodes of the television series Peyton Place. LargoLarry (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Complete lack of sourcing (independent or otherwise). Fails WP:OR, other deficiencies (WP:N, WP:RS) notwithstanding. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Article meets all wikipedia guidelines. Sections can be referenced via WP:CLEANUP. Ikip (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I have no idea what Ikip was talking about, I have no idea how this meets guidelines at all. And cleanup? With what sources? It's just a character played by a red link actor. We've already established that no sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 00:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge I am not opposed to merging smaller ones into a larger article on characters from the show. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and source article per WP:POTENTIAL, as a part of American televion history that has moved from in-universe to real-world coverage in reliable sources. And note, sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. That's not the case here. The claim to a significant character in a notable series is a claim to notability and is easily verified. All it needs is to be done. WP:AFD is not for cleanup, but will one again result in just that hapening.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I am sure there have been essays and dialogues on Peyton Place which will have some commentary on the character. A small list might work for a merge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The character was in only six out of 514 episodes of the TV series! She was in neither the original novel nor film adaptation. How could you possibly think "there have been essays and dialogues on Peyton Place which will have some commentary on the character"? I continue to vote to delete this article. LargoLarry (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is an extremely minor character, and most of the arguments to keep do not suggest where sources might be found. Sweeping statements about Peyton Place are no substitute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This was a huge series that, I beleive, was the first to emply the daytime drama soap format into primetime and dealt with many taboo subjects. I would be quite surprised if many of those articles writing about the series and characters were available online at all. There's little doubt they were written about extensively, the popularity of the prime time show, the scandalous storylines, etc. It will involve pulling up newspapers and magazines off microfiche unless and until those are digitally uploaded and transcribed to be searchable. -- Banj e  b oi   22:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So the series was important. The series was written about extensively. There will be many newspaper articles and magazines about the series. You haven't suggested where non-glancing coverage is going to come from. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as we have current characters written about extensively in current mainstream media; this series and characters were written about extensively back then. If we had a dozen articles talking about this character on the article already this would be a non-issue. Instead we have reason to beleive these sources exist but no one who has done the legwork to dig them up and transcribe them. Sources don't exist is not the same as we don't have the sources yet. -- Banj e  b oi   02:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge intact into a combination article. There is almost no good reason for having a separate article on her. There is excellent reason for having the information that's there within a article on the minor characters, no matter how long it gets. It's appropriate background for someone interested in finding out about the series. I'd add a photo, because we're talking about visual arts & it provides context for the description. There is only one argument for keeping this separate--the fear that people will think the content unsuitable and remove it, and the likelihood that the best way to prevent this is to have an article. In other words, the best thing to have is a good description in a combination article, a poor thing to have is a description in a separate article, but the worst is to have no description at all. The poor way is just a fault of organization; the worst is a failure to be be an encyclopedia. AMIB, do you accept such a compromise? DGG (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2009 (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.