517:
and the actor and describe them in brief, regardless of whether the character itself merits a standalone article, and with editorial judgment employed as to whether it's also worthwhile to list characters who only appeared in one episode. Whether that is done in a standalone list or within the article on the series itself is purely a matter of space concerns, and a show that lasted for forty-one years (particularly one with the ensemble soap opera format) obviously is going to have too many characters for the parent article to incorporate. That the show is now canceled is completely irrelevant to any consideration here, so I don't know why Gh87 keeps mentioning that in all of his deletion noms related to this show.
659:: These characters were and still are very important parts of the, whether it has been canelled or not. Just because the series has been cancelled doesn't mean they are no longer relevant. And if the shows will be airing online in early 2012, then why go through the trouble of deleting all these pages when viewers that use wikipedia will come back to look at the articles. Those people who actually edit will start and edit war and it will be one big mess, one day the article is there, another day it is a redirect. I think the articles should stay.--
565:, to be fair), and my comments and arguments are going to factor into whatever consensus this AFD is closed with. My comments, further, are more in line with the consensus repeatedly demonstrated for content of this kind, and what I describe is standard operating procedure for TV series characters and lists. It doesn't matter whether it's unreferenced at this time; the standard is whether it is verifiable, not verified.
640:
publication dealing with politics are not usable sources for politicians--it's the old claim that only material in general newspapers and magazines count, which would reduce
Knowledge (XXG) to a very much abridged encyclopedia . The basic principle of coverage is the basic principle of Knowledge (XXG): a comprehensive encyclopedia.
55:, whichever is better). There are quite a number of Keeps here but absolutely none of them give any policy-based reason why such an effectively unsourced article should not be where it belongs; i.e. in a character list. There appear to be a lot more articles on characters from this series that should be similarly merged.
539:
Have you read the consensus? Also, I have seen the similar arguments in other AFDs of soap-related articles. Why would you post the same argument that claims "notability", "reliability" and "significance" that the articles could not establish at this time? Are unreferenced character background and
516:
to an appropriate character list for the series. This is yet another example of content that should have been dealt with through normal editing and discussion rather than AFD. We document main and recurring characters for notable series as part of our coverage of those series, if only to list them
639:
no argument against merging has been given. Individual pieces of content in an article are not subject to WP:N; plot-only refers to total
Knowledge (XXG) coverage, not individual break-out articles. And the assertion that publications dealing with soap are not RSs is as nonsensical as saying that
558:
I have no opinion on whether there is a copyvio because I haven't investigated that, as it's a separate issue from whether these subjects should be covered in some way on WP. If there is a copyvio, it should be removed by removing the copyvio text from the article(s) if possible, or the article
472:: All of these articles are about noteworthy and popular characters that served a major purpose to the show and have a large following. They are relevant and well-known and include correct information in the articles that is notable for them to remain as individual articles.
494:
or any other "Knowledge (XXG):" articles? These articles either are not cited or have no significance from the third-party sources. Maybe you are so devoted to soap operas and have little knowledge about how
Knowledge (XXG) works, unless I'm wrong as you want to prove.
284:
161:
325:
They were previously PRODded; removed by IP editor who claimed that they are "notable". Still, even TV.com and publications that are soap-oriented are insufficient; even TV.com is user-submitted.
401:
278:
198:. Also, the content may have plagiarized from other websites, unless I'm wrong. Self-publications are insufficient to have this article stand on its own; at least they help per
614:
about arguments. Are the "canvas", which must be clarified while I was reading the definitions, and the awareness from soap dedicators legitimate enough to have these articles
122:
381:
363:: All articles mentioned should be kept due to their significance and valuable information. They are well-known and exhibit enough notability to remain as individual articles.
155:
224:
219:
228:
211:
544:
has been tagged for violating copyrights; should you remove the tag without proper reasoning? Should you contact the administrators about this? --
299:
663:
651:
627:
601:
578:
553:
530:
504:
481:
462:
441:
413:
393:
372:
354:
62:
266:
95:
90:
99:
192:
This article lacks notability establishment and third-party sources. Written like a biography of a fictional character of cancelled soap
215:
82:
561:
Re: "Have you read the consensus", I obviously disagree with your rationale and that of the other two delete !voters (little more than
541:
473:
52:
47:
17:
260:
176:
59:
256:
143:
207:
306:
678:
36:
592:: These characters you have nominated have still very important ties to the canvas and the pages must remain intact.
540:
plot enough to you? Also, articles should avoid copyright violations; I'm uncertain about the articles' writings.
137:
272:
677:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
133:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
86:
477:
458:
183:
562:
368:
56:
199:
292:
169:
597:
78:
149:
573:
525:
454:
409:
389:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
611:
429:
338:
437:
450:
425:
364:
194:
623:
549:
500:
350:
332:
320:
491:
660:
647:
593:
567:
519:
405:
385:
245:
116:
433:
619:
545:
496:
346:
328:
316:
642:
559:
deleted if the copyvio is too substantial a part of its history.
671:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
542:
List of All My
Children miscellaneous characters#Phil Brent
402:
list of
Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
241:
237:
233:
112:
108:
104:
291:
168:
305:
182:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
681:). No further edits should be made to this page.
53:List of All My Children miscellaneous characters
382:list of Television-related deletion discussions
8:
400:Note: This debate has been included in the
380:Note: This debate has been included in the
430:plot-only descriptions of a fictional work
399:
379:
337:As Jfgslo said, the articles are fully
202:Same reason for another article below:
339:plot-oriented for fictional characters
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
428:and their unreferenced articles are
48:List of All My Children characters
24:
426:the general notability guideline
208:Jamie Martin (All My Children)
1:
424:: The characters do not meet
335:) 23:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
323:) 23:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
664:22:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
652:00:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
628:22:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
602:22:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
579:22:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
554:17:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
531:16:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
505:17:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
482:15:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
463:08:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
63:23:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
442:07:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
414:00:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
394:00:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
373:19:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
355:08:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
698:
674:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
336:
324:
79:Jackson Montgomery
44:The result was
416:
396:
326:
314:
68:Fictional men of
689:
676:
310:
309:
295:
249:
231:
187:
186:
172:
120:
102:
34:
697:
696:
692:
691:
690:
688:
687:
686:
685:
679:deletion review
672:
252:
222:
206:
195:All My Children
129:
93:
77:
74:
70:All My Children
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
695:
693:
684:
683:
667:
666:
654:
633:
632:
631:
630:
605:
604:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
560:
534:
533:
514:Merge/redirect
510:
509:
508:
507:
490:Have you read
485:
484:
466:
465:
444:
418:
417:
397:
376:
375:
312:
311:
250:
190:
189:
126:
73:
66:
57:Black Kite (t)
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
694:
682:
680:
675:
669:
668:
665:
662:
658:
655:
653:
649:
645:
644:
638:
635:
634:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
608:
607:
606:
603:
599:
595:
591:
588:
587:
580:
576:
575:
570:
569:
564:
563:WP:VAGUEWAVEs
557:
556:
555:
551:
547:
543:
538:
537:
536:
535:
532:
528:
527:
522:
521:
515:
512:
511:
506:
502:
498:
493:
489:
488:
487:
486:
483:
479:
475:
471:
468:
467:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
445:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
420:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
398:
395:
391:
387:
383:
378:
377:
374:
370:
366:
362:
359:
358:
357:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
334:
330:
322:
318:
308:
304:
301:
298:
294:
290:
286:
283:
280:
277:
274:
271:
268:
265:
262:
258:
255:
254:Find sources:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
230:
226:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
204:
203:
201:
197:
196:
185:
181:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
135:
132:
131:Find sources:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
71:
67:
65:
64:
61:
58:
54:
50:
49:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
673:
670:
656:
641:
636:
615:
589:
572:
566:
524:
518:
513:
474:149.4.206.16
469:
455:Stuartyeates
446:
421:
360:
342:
313:
302:
296:
288:
281:
275:
269:
263:
253:
193:
191:
179:
173:
165:
158:
152:
146:
140:
130:
69:
45:
43:
31:
28:
449:as failing
279:free images
156:free images
447:Delete all
422:Delete all
365:Casanova88
343:delete all
341:. I vote
200:WP:SELFPUB
72:, volume 1
406:• Gene93k
386:• Gene93k
46:merge to
661:Nk3play2
594:Jester66
123:View log
612:WP:AADD
568:postdlf
520:postdlf
285:WP refs
273:scholar
225:protect
220:history
162:WP refs
150:scholar
96:protect
91:history
451:WP:GNG
434:Jfgslo
257:Google
229:delete
134:Google
100:delete
648:talk
637:merge
618:? --
345:. --
300:JSTOR
261:books
246:views
238:watch
234:links
177:JSTOR
138:books
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
657:Keep
624:talk
620:Gh87
616:kept
610:See
598:talk
590:Keep
574:talk
550:talk
546:Gh87
526:talk
501:talk
497:Gh87
492:WP:N
478:talk
470:Keep
459:talk
438:talk
410:talk
390:talk
369:talk
361:Keep
351:talk
347:Gh87
333:talk
329:Gh87
321:talk
317:Gh87
293:FENS
267:news
242:logs
216:talk
212:edit
170:FENS
144:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
51:(or
643:DGG
453:.
307:TWL
184:TWL
121:– (
60:(c)
650:)
626:)
600:)
577:)
552:)
529:)
503:)
495:--
480:)
461:)
440:)
432:.
412:)
404:.
392:)
384:.
371:)
353:)
327:--
315:--
287:)
244:|
240:|
236:|
232:|
227:|
223:|
218:|
214:|
164:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
646:(
622:(
596:(
571:(
548:(
523:(
499:(
476:(
457:(
436:(
408:(
388:(
367:(
349:(
331:(
319:(
303:·
297:·
289:·
282:·
276:·
270:·
264:·
259:(
248:)
210:(
188:)
180:·
174:·
166:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
136:(
128:(
125:)
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.