Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of Sunset Beach

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. There doesn't appear to be anyone arguing for deletion of these articles. Articles for Deletion is not the correct place to start discussions to merge articles. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional women of Sunset Beach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These articles below, along with the above, are nominated for the same reasons: they have not established notabilities, have been full of in-universes and empty of true perspectives, have not been referenced by sources, including third-party, and have been biographies of fictional characters of the cancelled soap Sunset Beach. During the AfD, there should be no cut-and-paste edits and no redirects during the AfD span. Instead, wait until this discussion is closed. By the way, these articles may not stand alone as articles any longer: either redirect all to List of Sunset Beach characters or delete all. --Gh87 (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Do you mean: Merge (or delete) all except Olivia Richards, Meg Cummings, Bette Katzenkazrahi and Annie Douglas Richards, which I have convinced myself to vote. Right now, I vote keep all except Sara Cummings, Caitlin Deschanel, Vanessa Hart, Gabi Martinez,, and Maria Torres. The articles that I ~~exempted~~ fully support have become more superb and precise as other articles of British soap operas and their entities. And no... The British is NOT invading of American soaps and their entities. ~~--Gh87 (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)~~ The articles that I have exempted (or italicized) have still not improved at this time, and my judgment is: they are not notable by many people, soap fans and casual viewers alike, and their articles have been overlooked to be improved for years. The current news do not cover these characters, and the news within the past ten years do not cover them at all (if not very much), especially outside soap-oriented periodicals. I'm very sure that the periodicals and books outside the primary sources, which would be of soap operas, at the time of near-cancellation covers only the soap opera and the portrayers, such as Eddie Cibrian, but I must have overlooked. Currently, the exempted articles contain plots only and left out the real world perception: this may be against what Wikipedia is not and should be not. These exempted fictional characters have potential to be notable; the reliable ones should be of the past because the current news, as mentioned previously, do not cover them after the cancellation of Sunset Beach. --Gh87 (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They have had no attention from a willing editor. Let's see what a revamp of one of them pulls up.RaintheOne ^BAM 18:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Keep all of them. All of the SB characters - women and men - should remain. They are notable characters and although they may have been neglected, I would like to help improve them. Do not delete them.Casanova88 (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to help, now would be a great time. You need to establish that they are notable.RaintheOne ^BAM 21:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per my talk page, I am not very sure if the current citations of Annie Douglas Richards are reliable anymore. They are very old articles at the time that the show was running. Let's check WP:RELIABILITY. To improve, the content that is cited should be either removed, rewritten, or kept. --Gh87 (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are you serious. Old sources? So in ten years time we should remove all "old" reliable sources. Many of the publications, if not all are still in circulation - reliable then and reliable now. As for it being rewritten - This is a AFD not a FAC.RaintheOne ^BAM 21:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know: You did your best. I have recently looked at the publications that you cited. Newspapers are very good as well as magazines. I guess: you have cited third-party publications. Can you evaluate your citations carefully? What about more recent articles? What about books and scholarly journals? That could be possible. Maybe I was wrong about the old articles; I just see one too many old that I became overwhelmed. Citing a recap from the Sunday edition of a newspaper? Maybe that is a good possibility. Just in case: perhaps we must avoid citing too many publications that discuss anything else in general, such as actors overall in one article and the show in the other, more than the character herself. Also, let's not have too much trivia there: one reference of Jerry Springer and a few references of other real people are probably good enough for now. --Gh87 (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to finish looking through the google news archive yet. Then I will look through google books and any other archives. I doubt you will find many class publications reporting on any soap character though - as soap opera is not the most high-brow genre. Also if the serial decided to hire high profile actors and personalities to help develop Annie's dream sequences, I do not see the issue. If a character is notable for something, then I like to put that spin on the article. Having once watched the show, I am included the most notable cameos - and that is shown by the fact they wsere reported on. Another good thing to bare in mind is that Annie is from a time that little online publications offered opinion peices on characters - because they did not have the readership they have gained during the throughout the last decade and the boom shift to newspapers going online. So for what I am included, it is a fair assumption that there is a lot of lost potential print sources out their for this character. The difference with this particular soap opera is that while it didn't fair all that good in viewership, it was a stable in the press for it's "bonkers" storylines, which Annie has been at the center of quite a lot. So that is why I perhaps contest the proposed deletion of these as opposed to many other characters from US soaps you have nominated for AFD. So I can assure you too that any trivial mentions and sources with bad editorial have been discarded by me.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all Per the nom. Note that unless someone has contested the merging, we don't actually even need to be at AfD... Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable television series. -- Evans1982 (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were you referring the show or the female characters themselves? If the show, then you might re-consider your argument: this AfD is about female characters of the show. <strike></strike> could help you ~~strike~~ your votes and then change. --Gh87 (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it is safe to say that Annie Douglas Richards should be kept now.RaintheOne ^BAM 15:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done the bolding and the italicizing separately and combined for more emphasis. --Gh87 (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All of these articles are relevant and notable. They do not deserve to be deleted because they all have correct sources that are reliable.149.4.206.16 (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:RELIABILITY and WP:CITE and WP:NOT? Also, what are reliable sources to you? TV.com is just merely user-submitted; why are its pages cited? Also, why do you think, other than Annie Douglas Richards, that articles have correct sources? Is it the plot, the character's background, or what? --Gh87 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - On the grounds that there is notability and potential in nearly every one of these. They need attention and I can not it alone, but given time they can be updated and real world info can be added, plot sections can be cut down and later sourced if needs be. Many publications have given opinion peices, there is casting info and some have been involved in notable plots. Source - Google News Search. It is just a case of adding some, I'm making a start.RaintheOne ^BAM 00:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All seem notable just looking at Annie Douglas Richards proves that they can be sourced and rescued from deletion.D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed Youtube sources that provide copyrighted material, which would be inspected by companies later then. I found them unreliable; sometimes, users or copyright owners remove them videos. Also, TV.com is user-submitted and administrator-approved. --Gh87 (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Provided sources for the main example, Olivia Blake and fixed it up a little. Now I've added some to Meg Cummings.RaintheOne ^BAM 13:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All are notable and seem to be improving due to outside sources and publications and various improvements. However, Raintheone, I am curious as to why you are making the articles similar to UK soaps. These are American soaps and should be in coordinance with other US soap infobox styles. Although the other improvements are more than welcome why are must the infoboxes resemble UK soaps. Though not a major disagreement, there is no logic in that.Casanova88 (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would because UK editors have a handle on soap opera articles - but I'll leave that discussion for else where.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casanova, can you re-phrase your argument? It appears as if the British is invading articles of American soaps, unless I understood less. What is your logic? --Gh87 (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of Sunset Beach characters: I do not believe that the fictional characters meet the general notability guideline and, outside of Olivia Richards, Meg Cummings, Bette Katzenkazrahi and Annie Douglas Richards, they are plot-only descriptions of a fictional work. As List of Sunset Beach characters already exists, merging content from the articles should be better than outright deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: "Olivia Blake" has become "Olivia Richards". --Gh87 (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have started to add sources and character development to Virginia Harrison.RaintheOne ^BAM 18:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the articles that have been improved and now contain real world info should be kept and the others should be merged to an appropriate list. - JuneGloom Talk 21:32, 15 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.