Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of Passions, volume 1

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 January 3.
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 delete. v/r - T P 15:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional women of Passions, volume 1[edit]

(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

The above articles do not have notability establishments, especially from the third-party sources. Also, each article is full of fictional entry as a resemblance of a biography. Also, the show Passions is cancelled for three years. Do we have to search for the older articles or the more recent articles to establish notability?
To be clear, there should be no cut-and-paste editings, especially from you, Casanova88, during the AfD span, including the relistings. Instead, we must discuss these articles, and then we'll let rather the administrators close for results after the time runs out than me close prematurely, as I did for fictional characters for All My Children. --Gh87 (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to an appropriate character list for the series. This is yet another example of content that should have been dealt with through normal editing and discussion rather than AFD. We document main and recurring characters for notable series as part of our coverage of those series, if only to list them and the actor and describe them in brief, regardless of whether the character itself merits a standalone article, and with editorial judgment employed as to whether it's also worthwhile to list characters who only appeared in one episode. Whether that is done in a standalone list or within the article on the series itself is purely a matter of space concerns, and a show that lasted for nine years (particularly one with the ensemble soap opera format) obviously is going to have too many characters for the parent article to incorporate. That the show is now canceled is completely irrelevant to any consideration here, so I don't know why Gh87 keeps mentioning that in all of his deletion noms related to this or any other show. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Bennett and Standish families? --Gh87 (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all or redirect all to List of Passions characters: The characters do not meet the general notability guideline as stand-alone subjects and their articles are plot-only descriptions of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:11, 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.