Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sierra Esteban


 * 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. Clearly there is no consensus to delete, though I don't see that we've really done much to establish notability.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sierra Esteban

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is no impact from this character herself. I could not find significant coverages of this characters from secondary and other non-primary sources that are independent of this subject. News sources that I have found consisted of only summaries of soap operas, which do not indicate notability. Books... I don't know if books indicate notability of this character; scholars I haven't searched yet. There are no commonly accepted guidelines or policies that may help indicate notability of fictional characters; essays, like WP:Notability (fiction), do not count. It may fail GNG, but some may disagree and prove me wrong with offline sources. Her own storylines, including Craig Montgomery and Sierra Esteban, do not help indicate impact from this character at all; reliable sources are still yet to be found. George Ho (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Almost forgot: List of As the World Turns characters is merely a directory with many omitted abstracts, including of this character; I don't think this article is worth redirecting to there. --George Ho (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Looking under "Sierra Esteban As the World Turns," there seems to be some notability there. George, why would you nominate this article for deletion if you "don't know if books indicate notability of this character"? You are supposed to check every aspect when it comes to determining whether a character meets Wikipedia's notability standards or not. This character has existed for a long time, and characters that have existed for a long time are likely to be documented in scholarly work. You have been advised on this before, to be more thorough with your searches. Simply using the general Google search engine and Google News will not do. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have recently checked; I could not find books that significantly cover this character alone. Without Craig, Sierra is, even if a long-time character, not notable alone. The only coverages she receives are trivial, such as a book of baby names. By the way, I left out "Esteban" to widen the search; I still found none significant in Google Books, unless Craig is also mentioned. --George Ho (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the soap opera recaps in third-party sources do not determine the notability of this character, even if they determine the truth of character's storylines instead. Soap opera recaps about this character in any editions of a periodical, such as Soap Opera Weekly or Soap Opera Digest, to me, do not count as "significant coverages," unless they are proven to determine notability of this character. Recaps are recaps and may validate accuracy of plots, but receptions and impact are, to me, significant coverages. I could not find sources to indicate reception for this character alone, and I could not find impact from this character from any source, as well. Do you think this AfD is a waste of space? --George Ho (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how notable this character is, if there is any true notability by Wikipedia standards for her, outside of her pairing with Craig (and I see you prodded that, her couple article, for deletion as well), but I would say that this article would have been better off being redirected. Just remember that some notable topics may have little to support their notability online, but a lot supporting it offline. Redirecting articles such as this is always better because it's possible that an editor who can provide notability may come along. Flyer22 (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...If you want to challenge the PROD, be bold! Still, I'm currently searching Craig and Sierra ; my search for Sierra is over, and, as mentioned before, offline sources are too obscure nowadays. No microfilms were saved, except in some libraries, including UCLA. Issues were too disposable. No subsequent publications of older works have been made. There's nothing else I can do to establish notability of this topic. However, I may be wrong; some fansites have preserved these precious articles; no one else can do that. --George Ho (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I could not find the couple in Google News. I found two sources that may or may not help establish notability of Sierra and Craig together: and . The first one is trivial and refers the couple as "romantic longings of twentyish Craig and Sierra." The second... well, it uses the couple to compare the Christian beliefs. That such amount is too small to help the couple pass GNG. However, that is all I can do. --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Wait... http://www.amazon.com/Alive-2-S-Rickly-Christian/dp/0310499119/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1#reader_0310499119. I did search "Sierra Craig" in the second source; turns out to be trivial, as well. Both are, overall, trivial. That source was comparing the soap opera with general Christian beliefs. --George Ho (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep " books that significantly cover this character alone "is an absurd criterion, way beyond WP:N. There seem to be sufficient sources. Using the couple to illustrate Christian beliefs is, contra the comment above, significant coverage.  DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay... challenge the deletion of Craig Montgomery and Sierra Esteban in WP:REFUND if you can prove notability with this Christian book. The book used snippet of the recap from newspaper to compare Christian theories. The recap itself doesn't prove the notability of either this character or the couple; rather it proves the events that happened on TV. Why are recaps considered significant coverages? To me they are not. Recaps are written because soap opera episodes may not be rebroadcast again in the future, especially in the current era where Soapnet is going, going... gone! True, recaps are secondary sources that recap primary sources; I don't see hints of notability. The theory talks about flipping the channel and neglecting reality, unless I've misread it.
 * ...Oh, boy. I have over and over attempted to convince you that recaps do not indicate significant coverages. I don't have sources to prove my theory about soap recaps, but... I don't know who's right or wrong, but maybe I must discuss soap recaps in WP:RSN or somewhere to prove that using recaps as proof of notability is not good. I don't know what you are thinking, but recaps are trivial coverages to me. What are your examples of proving notability? --George Ho (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per good arguments by Flyer and DGG. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How are my arguments, on the other hand? --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, you seem to be arguing that the article can not be expanded in any way and no more than two sources can be located ... I think that, here, it's a weak argument. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have any more to add to whether or not this article should be deleted. George, I just want to point out that recaps are not only written because the episode may never be rebroadcast. Like for shows of other genres, recaps may also be provided for those who would rather not watch the episode or because it may be some time before the episode reruns. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 10 January 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.