Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayley Vaughan Santos

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. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 15:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Vaughan Santos

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The actress/host may be notable, but what about this character? No third-party publications yet for this fictional character. Self-published scripts and episodes of a cancelled All My Children can be insufficient, even 60 or 1,000 episodes and scripts. --Gh87 (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC) ~~I vote delete. --Gh87 (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep. Nominator did insufficient research. There are third-party publications for this fictional character. See this Google Books source. The character (yes, the character, not just the actress) has been featured in TV Guide over a dozen or so times. The nominator is obsessed with the fact that this show has been cancelled (even though it will likely continue on the Internet), as though cancellation factors into notability. The nominator continues to do insufficient research on these characters, searching Google Books under the wrong combination of words. Mainly hindered by quotation marks being in the search engine, etc. In this case, it is not entirely the nominator's fault since the article is currently not under its WP:COMMONNAME. But the nominator is still not careful in his or her searches. A topic should be thoroughly checked for notability before its deletion nomination. That includes checking under a different combination of words. 110.88.209.200 (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books previews many, not all, pages of every copyrighted pressings: in other words, some pages are not shown. How is Google Books reliable? Unless a material is a public domain, I am uncertain of using Google Books as a research. I can't use poems as reliable sources, which I have recently researched. And there is no TV Guide from Google Books, unless I've overlooked. I know that this character is not as legendary as Erica Kane, but I have used only this character's first name (Hayley) and the name of the show, and I could not find anything reliable except this which discusses parent-child issues in soaps and Hayley is mentioned in just one page and some others which non-previewed pages possibly mentioned her. --Gh87 (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books doesn't have to preview all pages. How is Google Books reliable? Are you kidding? The top of this page even says "Find sources" with links to Google. It's about what is found on Google Books. If Haley has been written about in non self-published books, which she has, that demonstrates third-party publications. Even if written about in poetry. We cite the books and/or what they say, not Google Books. The reference you provided, plus that poetry one, and the Journal of popular film and television source found in the initial Google link I showcased above prove that the character is likely notable. There may be no TV Guide entry in that Google Books search, but my point is that she has been featured in TV Guide a dozen or so times. I'm not sure why there are not more third-party hits specifically about her, but I doubt it's because she's not notable. As Wikipedia:Search engine test#Notability says, "Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none, for reasons discussed further down this page."

I just feel that you need to be more careful in tagging these articles as possibly non-notable and tagging or nominating them for deletion. You even tagged Zoe (All My Children) as needing notability[1] when just that one Associated Press reference is enough to establish notability.[2] Do you really believe this character was only written about once in a major news source and that was it? Just the simple Google search Zoe transgender All My Children shows otherwise. And there's more than enough about the character on Google Books.[3] and a bit on Google Scholar.[4] At least you didn't nominate that article for deletion. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This editor has canvassed and tried to persuade members of a project to save this article. - [5]RaintheOne ^BAM 20:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You should read what are acceptable aspects of WP:CANVASSING. Alerting a project that related articles are up for deletion and that they may want to attempt to save any of them is acceptable! 174.137.184.36 (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should read it more like. Seriously the line "the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate." - describes your action in a nutshell. If you keep it up you'll be reported. Simple really.RaintheOne ^BAM 16:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said at the project: I don't appreciate you lying in this debate. Alerting a project that related articles are up for deletion and that they may want to attempt to save any of them is acceptable! I did not say "Save these articles." So your assertion that I "tried to persuade members of [the project] to save this article" is false. I reported what I believed to be a threat to the project [this editor nominating articles without sufficiently checking for their notability and/or because he or she perceives characters from a cancelled show to be non-notable; the editor has pretty much stated the latter in other All My Children deletion debates]. And I said, "I'm alerting the project about this for those who would like to comment in the deletion debates and/or try to save these articles."

Keep what up? Defending myself? If you mean alerting more editors, appropriate canvassing is alerting the project and then moving on. Or alerting editors who have been involved with editing this article and then moving on, which is not something I'm going to do. I have given no indication that I am going to alert any more editors.

Thank you for turning this into being about me and painting me as some corrupt IP address, instead of trying to help. Sarcasm. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article way to important and should remain kept. Notable information is included and there should be no question of deletion.Casanova88 (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fictional character does not have significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject to presume that it meets the general notability guideline. All that shows up with a search engine test are trivial mentions, unreliable sources or mentions regarding the plot of the series, but no concrete evidence to presume that an article about the character can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work, material unsuitable for Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've given this plenty of thought. There seems no hope of salvaging this one. A lot of the characters material is simply not noteworthy.RaintheOne ^BAM 16:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Articles like this should be redirected to List of All My Children characters or List of All My Children miscellaneous characters, not destroyed to where what could be a redirect is also destroyed. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect: These are the only two possible outcomes otherwise deletion is intentionally wiping away the characters purpose. Simply reidrect it to the miscellaneuous character article and keep it intact with all of its information and image.149.4.206.16 (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the other All My Children characters can go, but Hayley is one of the core characters on the show, even if she's been gone for a long time. I would say she's the second-most well known of all the female AMC characters. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major character, sufficiently sourced. The fact that the show has been cancelled has no bearing on this discussion. Please note that the television show itself serves as sourcing for fictional character articles, additional sources have been added to the article. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 16:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You need to stop mentioning the cancellation of AMC, it's not cancelled, it's just no longer airing on television. It will go online in January, and will be available through onDemand systems. Hayley was a pivotal part of AMC history, and was on-air for many years. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 5:48PM 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep Evidence is available for it being one of the most important characters. If not, certainly merge & redirect instead of delete. No argument has been given about why a merge is unsatisfactory, for the excellent reason that there is no rational argument. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable character on notable series, close this sucker. Some character articles on the project may not be worthy, but this is not one worth debating further at this time.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.