Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Brooks

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 no consensus. Wizardman 21:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Brooks[edit]

Insignificant fictional character who appeared in only 24 out of 514 episodes of the television series Peyton Place. LargoLarry (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete lack of sourcing (independent or otherwise). Fails WP:OR, other deficiencies (WP:N, WP:RS) notwithstanding. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Article meets all wikipedia guidelines. Sections can be easily referenced, the rest can be edited via WP:CLEANUP. Ikip (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think Ikip's "strong keep" was WP:POINTy. This character clearly doesn't meet any notability guidelines, as there are no sources to be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 00:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge intact. It's really the best way to do these. The important point is to retain the content. Personally, I only care about it being in separate articles so people don't then try to delete it as unimportant. DGG (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional character. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of Peyton Place characters (I was not able to find one, but since it can be sourced, one should exist). There's clearly no "total" lack of sources, just too little to warrant a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say that having the entry in the encyclopedia of television would be sufficient notability. However, I am not opposed to merging smaller ones into a larger article on characters from the show. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and further source article per WP:POTENTIAL, as a part of American televion history that has moved from in-universe to real-world coverage in reliable sources. And note, sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. That's not the case here. The claim to a significant character in a notable series is a claim to notability and is easily verified. All it needs is to be done. WP:AFD is not for cleanup, but will one again result in just that hapening. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am sure there have been essays and dialogues on Peyton Place which will have some commentary on the character. A small list might work for a merge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no valid reason to destroy the article. She appeared in 24 episodes of a notable series, so that makes her notable. Dream Focus 19:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. A stronger argument needs to be made for why notability is conferred from the series. Without consenses on that at the moment, we have to go back and look at WP:GNG, which this article does not meet. Being sure that there will be sources, is not a valid argument, unless those sources can be found, and debated. No need for a merge as the article at present is mainly plot summary. I realise that there is ongoing debate about plot details, but these sort of articles are acting as a workaround so that more plot is included. If plot is to be included then it should be in the parent article, or appropriately split sections of that article (I realise that 514 episodes is a large amount of plot to cover), but not in individual character articles. Quantpole (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The complete encyclopedia of television programs mentions only that this character exists and was played by this actress. This fact is already present in Peyton Place. There are lots of people claiming that this character is important, but nobody suggesting what sort of sources we might use to make this article more than a non-free image and a scrap of plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable by the common sense standard, i.e. played by a blue link actress in a mainstream series in two dozen episodes. Content is verifiable in reliable sources. No reason to redlink or delete the edit history. I am open-minded to a merge and redirect in this case, however. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be a common-sense standard you made up on the spot. Can you offer any sources we can use to write this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have found enough to verify that the article is not a hoax and all. And if nothing else, User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable. Seriously, though, per WP:PRESERVE and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, I think somehow this information can be used, improved, or at least preserved. For example, what kinds of magazine sources from the time may have reasonably covered this character in say interviews or reviews, but aren't on Google archives? The show itself is covered in out of universe fashion in many books that don't allow for full view on Google. One can reasonably believe that in some of these, coverage may exist as well. So, we already established that it is not made up or libelous and we have a reasonable belief that additional sourcing may be available, so no need to destroy the foundations before the house can be finished. But anyway, given that we have a clear merge and redirect location at Peyton_Place_(TV_series)#Characters, why not just compromise? On this one, I am open to meeting there and hope you are too. I can live with an redirect with edit history intact, even if I prefer it be kept outright. Not all of these need to be major disagreements. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask if it was a hoax, as WP:N does not require "things which are no hoaxes". I asked you if there were any sources that covered this subject with which we can write an article, and you have presented none. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:12, 13 May 2009 (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.