Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aubrey Wentworth

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 November 16.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. One two three... 20:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey Wentworth[edit]

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

Aubrey Wentworth is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Played by an actress who is known - yet the character has so far failed to generate any notability. Your google news search proves that no one wants to even report on the character, offer any opinion on her - most importantly - no notable storylines in any form of media.

Google hits? See a couple of searches on google news for her - nothing comes up - [1] [2] [3]

Sources

You have got ref 3 - Daytimeconfidential - citing something the character does onscreen - not that the source supports it of course.

Ref 4 - TV Guide - This articles only credible/reliable ref - yet it supports a in universe storyline sentence.

Refs 1 & 6 - these are primrary sources, they have to upload a character profile because that is their target audience - ABC needs to promote the characters, while About.com runs a dedicated soap section profiling all the characters that grace the screen - so nothing special about Aubrey having one.

The rest are from soapssheknows, everyones favourite place to get their inuniverse daily fill from - and true to form - they are all episode summaries - now we could make hundreds of articles is episode recaps actually said anything... they just tell the story off the small screen - while not providing any notability for Aubrey.

Further issues are:

No reliable sources providing notability - thus failing WP:GNG
Sources failing WP:RS
No real world information
Not in compliance with MOS:FICTION
An image with a poor rationale - a promo picture - yet the rationale does not explain why it is needed in the context of this article
Very inline with Wikipedia:Fancruft - Romances listed in the infobox - Yes, you can even find out who she has slept with and the exact dates it happens. And it even lets you know she is female. Then there is the handy plot bank so you can find out every single scene she appears in.
Poor prose
overly detailed for what it is

I requested that this page be merged originally, but no one offered any advice, after merging the backlash began - not even a reason - just restoring - I remove romance info, apparently it is crucial we notify readers of this info. The whole article is ran by IP editors who are not familiar with any guideline here - this article would be perfect for a Aubrey fansite.

The final - most crucial IMO - is that this serial is very low in ratings, so much so that ABC has axed the show, it won't be on the TV in a few months - which means Aubrey won't gain any notability - so there is no potential to build.RaintheOne ^BAM 03:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As highlighted by nom, the subject clearly fails GNG, and to a degree that even a merge is probably unjustifiable. Claret Ash 04:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wow, that's long nominating statement. We have articles on major characters on all of these horrible soap operas, is the deletion of this one going to do anything useful?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because other crap exists... Claret Ash 10:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, this comment misconstrues OTHERCRAP.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness knows how. You made reference to similar articles (an ATA) so I responded by reminding us all of the subjectivity of doing so which, I believe, is the gist of OTHERCRAP. Claret Ash 15:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the point I made was she isn't a "major" character - so actual "major characters" having articles shouldn't come into play. Deletion will remove a non notable subject from wikipedia - useful.RaintheOne ^BAM 14:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The character needed sources, and I added valid sources to support the character's story lines. I agree the character was lacking at first, but I was able to show that she is notable and part of the show's central landscape. The character has become a central part of the show and just because the show is cancelled (on television only - it is moving to the Internet in January 2012) should not be a factor in the decision of whether the article is kept or deleted. That is the NOT the "most crucial" in this decision because even if the show were completely cancelled that does not wipe away the character's notability as if it never existed. Romances should remain because like every other soap article, it demonstrates the character's history. That is part of an encyclopedia, to give information on a subject and romances are information of importance to this character and article. All of the "issues" listed above are ill-listed because the article demonstrates notability and everything included is essential for the article and without it, takes away from its value and importance. The character is well-known and has become a major part of the show and her notability has already been built. Should the character's information in the article be re-written, yes, it should. Should the article be deleted, absolutely not. You see, articles need to be improved before there is no hope at all where they should be deleted. This article is by no means that bad and can be thoroughly improved. Casanova88 (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia - notable things get included here. So because your POV is "The character has become a central part of the show." you think she should be one here. Not the case. The sources you added are either primary or fansites - over all they are episode summaries and character profiles! It really shows you up that you say it is important to inform the general reader that Aubrey Wentworth had a one night stand and dated another character - Romances is only one percent of the problem - just like Romances - the whole thing is mere trivial character plot. Failing WP:GNG.. The show being cancelled does play a part, because it indicates less chance of ever gaining notability. Your in-universe editing style is making the article worse off.RaintheOne ^BAM 18:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources that support the character's notability. Yes, the character is a central part of the show and that indeed warrants an individual article. Romances are a part of the character and that is crucial for the article because it lists the people the character interacts with and is important as part of the character's history. Who is Victor Newman without listing Nikki Newman under romances, for example. They are a part of one another's storylines and are important to include in infoboxes, and this character should be no different. I demonstrate enough understanding of Wikipedia, especially when it comes to the fact that a cancellation of a show does not and should not factor into an article deletion of a show itself or a character. The ending of a show does not mean a character cannot be established. This character is already quite established and the cancellation should not be held against the character. That excuse is not valid at all. Casanova88 (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the character is not notable on Wikipedia - if the show is cancelled - that means the character won't gain more notability. Simple really. In your opinion she is centrel to the show. Find me a source to back up your point of view...RaintheOne ^BAM 14:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see extreeme salvagebility hare, enough information is givin that even if we must weed out parts of it that are not properly citated, enough could be kept for a properly referenced stub or Start-class article that would pass the WP:GNG. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want a non-notable stub article with no potential of expansion? Confusing. I'd also like to pointt your that your idea would not pass WP:GNG because a stub won't have significant coverage, the sources will still be unreliable or primary, so without that means there won't be enough establishes the presumption that she is notable, so no chance of a guarantee she is. There it will not pass the "General notability guideline" like you claim.RaintheOne ^BAM 18:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge The article is little more than a plot synopsis and fails WP:GNG and WP:FICT. Personally I think the article should be merged to an appropriate character list, where it can be built upon if she becomes more notable. Being a regular or "central to the show" does not automatically qualify the character for an individual article. Having reliable sources and real world information does. - JuneGloom Talk 23:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not believe that there is objective evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline or that the article can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Embrace your inner pop-culture cruft. Sourcing showing is sufficent, in my opinion. Don't confuse the dual functions of Wikipedia: serious encyclopedia and pop culture compendium. Carrite (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Milowent. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, this isn't a vote. If you're so keen for the article to remain, I suggest you clarify your preference with reference to whether or how the article meets or can meet WP's standards. I also suggest you re-read the above discussion as you might find that User:Milowent hasn't stated any preference. To make the statement you did could be considered misleading. Claret Ash 09:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the IP is a sock that only contribs to AFD's... Anyway, I've put a request for comment over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television.RaintheOne ^BAM 10:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - Look, the sources in the article aren't reliable sources, and there's no evidence of her being notable independent of her show. The article probably SHOULD be deleted. Nevertheless, after being listed for two weeks and attracting eight !votes, it should be clear that regardless of the merits of the argument there is no community consensus to delete, and I can't see any possible chain of events that results in a majority of the policy-based contributions to this discussion agreeing to deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstand. First of all, this isn't a vote, it's a discussion. That means that the quantity of votes is of less importance and the merits of the arguments, despite your statement suggesting otherwise, are of greater. Consequently, if we examine the arguments properly, we see that all arguments in favour of keeping the article have been refuted. Second of all, I don't know where you see eight votes. If you'd read the discussion properly, you'd see that one of the keep "votes" (by an IP) was misleadingly based on another user's comment and, with no further argument put forward, can't seriously be considered. Additionally, I don't understand why you've prefaced your own comment with the words "procedural keep". You concede the sources are unreliable; you concede the subject's lack of notability; you concede the need to delete the article: this does not equate to a keep argument, let alone a "procedural" keep. Claret Ash 08:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I'm saying is that, drawing from a long experience with AfD, there is no way that, at this point, this discussion is going to reach a policy-based consensus to delete. Whether or not that's the right outcome, it's just not going to happen. Even if several editors immediately turned up and all voted delete, the increased activity is going to draw the attention of more policy-based keep votes. As a matter of practical management of the project, keeping this discussion open will serve no useful purpose and wastes the energy of editors who could be identifying pages more clearly in need of deletion. Long AfDs breed conflict in the community, rarely result in a deletion, and only enhance the project if a matter of fundamental principle is being intelligently examined. Close the AfD as "no consensus to delete", move on, and renominate in two months if you think it's still an issue then. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - First of all, I apologise if my previous tone seemed harsh. Regarding this AfD, though, although I understand your view (thank you for clarifying), I just don't think it applies in this case. When I look at the article, I see a minor character being talked up as more than what she is. So, by all means, let's close this discussion, but with an outcome of delete. After all, the strongest keep argument so far appears to be yours. All the others have been refuted or are based on opinion rather than policy. Claret Ash 12:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a substitute for websites dedicated to soap operas. This character is obviously non-notable, especially when the ratings of soap operas have become very low nowadays. She appeared for one year, and the show will be off the television for a few months; let's not get into internet transfer, all right? The fact that she has major (non-notable) storylines does not help the article stand on its own. --Gh87 (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable due to lack of RSs. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:44, 15 November 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.