Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey (2nd nomination)

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. Walton ^Assistance! 19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey[edit]

This is a procedural nomination, after closing the previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey: during that debate, an extensive amount of revision took place, making most of the independent opinions moot. It has become apparent that the article creator, User:Flyer22, is quite dedicated to the article and wants to bring the article in line with Wikipedia policies as much as possible. However, the previous debate did not settle whether or not the topic is appropriate, and I would like that to be the focus of this debate. Summarizing, J.R. and Babe are a popular couple on the major soap opera All My Children, a couple that has been fairly significant in the plot for some time. However, there are already articles on J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey separately, as well as some separate general storyline articles. It is not unprecedented to have articles on soap opera couples (there are many examples at Supercouple), but precedentdoesn't mean much. Closer: consider me neutral. Mango juice^talk 17:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, now I know why it was nominated again. I got worrried there for a second. Yes, I now feel that this topic is appropriate. The revisions were quite significant, and this article focuses more so on J.R. and Babe's life together, their creation, and their impact as a couple, separate from their individual articles. Flyer22 17:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything that isn't repetition to J.R. Chandler, Babe Carey and/or All My Children as appropriate and then DELETE. Agreed that the article is now much better and in line with Wikipedia policies but I still consider the article to be fancruft on the basis that seperate articles already exist for both this articles subjects, and more than enough information on the storyline already exists on the programme's article. Therefore we risk a great deal of confusion and repitition by allowing it to remain. A1octopus 17:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind that it's not acceptable to merge and then delete, per GFDL concerns. Mango juice^talk 18:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A1octopus, I don't necessarily feel that the article is on the same basis as the J.R. Chandler article or the Babe Carey article. By Wikipedia's standards, the J.R. Chandler article and the Babe Carey article will have to be edited down as well, thus even then it will differ from this artice. Right now, this article differs from those in that as stated before, it is on the basis of the origin of the couple, how they were created, the inspiration. This article also mentions detail such as J.R and Babe's time in France together while the other articles do not. It intricately incorporates creation, history and impact. The others don't, and once the others are edited down, the chance of them doing so will be even less likely. I don't see how there will be any confusion here, just as there isn't any confusion with other soap couples having articles on Wikipedia, but also individual articles on Wikipedia. The J.R. and Babe article doesn't focus heavily on what is already mentioned in their separate pages, but rather focues on their significance as a couple. Flyer22 18:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not a fan of AMC, but we've been working on guidelines for "soap couple" articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas. Though I don't know if I'd go quite as far as to say that J.R. and Babe are a supercouple, they do seem to meet our guidelines as a "notable" couple, since they appear on "top 10" lists and are referred to in multiple third-party sources. As such, I believe that this topic meets the bar for inclusion. I'd also like to commend Flyer22 (talk · contribs) for really doing an amazing job here. Despite being a new editor, and on the receiving end of an extraordinary amount of criticism, she has maintained an unfailingly upbeat attitude, has listened carefully to concerns, and done a major overhaul of the article, which is now extensively referenced. In fact, I think she's turned it into something which, with a bit more polish, might go as far as making it to Good article status. Per WP:BITE alone, I think we should keep this article, and encourage this excellent editor to stick around on Wikipedia. We could definitely use more people with her energy and positive attitude. :) --El on ka 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep This is hugely improved from the original article -- frakly i wouldn't have belived it could ever attain the current level of quality. While there is still more plot summery than I like, it is now celarly a summary and not a retelling. Ther is lots of information on the real-world impact, adn much of it is well sourced. I am not a fan of such articles, but this is probably about as good as one can get. DES ^(talk) 20:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:29, 17 May 2007 (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.