Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor characters of Days of our Lives

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. No definite consensus either way that I can see. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters of Days of our Lives[edit]

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

Delete directory listing of sub-trivial soap characters. JBsupreme (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnotable, minor characters. Wikipedia is not a TV guide nor a Days of Our Lives fansite, and a listing of such minor characters falls squarely under both. Major characters are the only ones that are notable enough for any kind of coverage on Wikipedia, not this random list of minor ones that do nothing but repeat episode plot summaries already covered elsewhere. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim plot summary. Agree with Collectonian that this isn't a fan site, but there's no reason not to keep this as a list. In fact, many, many notable American television actors make their start in soaps, and DooL is among the most notable of those. Jclemens (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no third-party referencing for this article. It fails both notability and practical verifiability as it stands. JBsupreme (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely useful and practical holding area for minor characters that can't support their own articles. Part of Wikipedia's remit is to be a reference material for all sorts of information; a catalog of fictional characters is part of that. It's got nothing to do with being TV Guide, which publishes detailed daily programming schedules. Powers ^T 18:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because they're, like, minor and stuff. No reliable sources independent of the subject treat these fictional things in any depth at all, either independently or in aggregate. There is no reliable source for the criteria of inclusion of this list. No way to confirm the accuracy of the claims without watching mind-gelatinating hours of soap operas, and no part of the sum of human knowledge being covered here. Entirely in universe, too.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JClemens. They're not available online, but there are several weekly soap magazines that cover soaps in crazy detail. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be, but they're not covering these minor characters. Please address the issues at hand with this list. JBsupreme (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Basically, people who don't find soap stuff encyclopedic don't want to hear it, but those soap mags cover soaps in such detail, so frequently, that just about every soap character is notable. These characters could actually have seperate articles with production and reception sections, if wikipedians read those magazines, or could search them electronically (which we don't and can't). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Character lists should generally restrict themselves to significant characters, or at the very least, characters to whom understanding of the plot would be significantly impaired (i.e. reading an episode list would be difficult) if they were not listed. Sourcing solves this problem in most cases, but even when considering the latter criterion, an entire list of minor characters falls squarely under WP:UNDUE. Merge the necessary ones to the main article or a larger list and trim the rest. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having worked on this article some, I agree that it needs MUCH work. However, most of the information contained in it is about characters who don't warrant separate articles themselves. Agree that sourcing is a problem. Rm994 (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needed List of Minor Characters. Unless all these characters are going to get there own page don't delete.Gabi Hernandez talk) 01:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one citation for ~43,348 bytes does not a valid article make; fails WP:V, WP:N, et. al. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to sources aplenty when checking on Google. These are notable and major characters to millions of viewers of this astonishingly recognizable show. Therefore, this article concerning non-trivial characters undeniably passes fails WP:V and WP:N per WP:PRESERVE and WP:MAD. Character lists should generally be as comprehensive as possible themselves to appeal to our broad diverse readership. Sourcing solves this problem in most cases, but even when considering the latter criterion, an entire list of minor characters falls squarely under our support of spinoff articles. If we merge the necessary ones to the main article or a larger list and trim the rest, we must still retain the edit history per the GFDL. No need to protect the public from this article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The entire article is plot summary, and is in direct violation of WP:PLOT. It would need a complete rewrite to be notable. And if there are so many sources (ostensibly plot related) when doing an online search, the information is not anything the public cannot find elsewhere.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A logical separation between major and minor characters in one of the leading US Soaps. Little doubt that numerous sources exist supporting all the characters, in fact we have Category:Television soap opera media including Soap Opera Digest that details every major US soap's plotlines and characters. The main character list is not dense but it is quite lengthy already and focussed as bare list whereas this list helpfully provides a sentence or two which is quite reasonable for a list. No reason to delete this which serves our readers who are interested in this content. -- Banjeboi 15:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a list of minor characters and it does what a list of minor characters should do. These lists exist to collect information on fictional characters that do not individually warrent their own articles; by policy and definition none of them will be notable themselves or they would not be in this list. References undoubtably exist somewhere but not, I expect, within the stereotypical range of interests of the average dedicated internet-user or wikipedian. It looks like it could use some editing but nothing so extreme as deletion. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In fact, in addition to the magazines mentioned Google Books shows multiple books on the subject of Days of our Lives. None of them are viewable through Google Books, however, so the information will need to be gathered through a library or private collection. Nevertheless, the citations are clearly out there ready to be used. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #2: I've trimmed and added some references to one character, Mia McCormick (picked at random), using online recaps, including airdates of appropriate episodes. I don't think I can personally do this for the entire list, as I do not have the time and I have never seen this soap, but it hopefully demonstrates that it can be done. I expect there are better references out there but these basically cover the necessary details. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another comment: It isn't active anymore but there might be some relevant guidance at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episode recaps are not significant coverage of the character, and no, there is no relevance of that guideline at all as it was wholly rejected by the community as not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. In reality, most minor characters are deleted as they are an unnotable element of a fictional work, and generally nothing but pure plot, as is this list. If a minor character has significant coverage, they usually are being mislabeled as minor or such information is more appropriate in the main article. The only minor character lists I see get kept are ones like this, in Soaps where it seems like the entire project and the series fans converge in mass to "defend" it with the claims that their "must" be coverage (without providing any), that because they are covered in Soap rags as part of an episode summary, that's significant coverage, and if they might be mentioned in some publication about the soap as a whole (which usually are not third party). The topic of minor characters in the soap as a whole is unnotable, which is why this list should be deleted, the same as any other. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not a fan of the soap, I don't even think it's broadcast in my country, it just looked like a defensible article while browsing AfDs. Having looked around, there are no guidelines about lists of minor characters (WP:FICT explicitly doesn't apply to lists). However, the fact that there is an entire Category:Lists of minor fictional characters (121 articles) and the precedent of previous AfDs (The top three in my search were Marmalade Boy, Eastenders and Firefly: two keeps and a merge) seems to indicate a de facto policy to accept these lists. (Also, policy-wise: per WP:NNC the content doesn't have to be notable, that applies to the list as a whole.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And notice that most of them are soap lists, several are in fact miscategorized regular character lists, and many are replicates from the same series. Seriously, 13 lists for Holly Oaks, 20 from Emmerdale!! You seriously think those are appropriate? Further, WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid keep reason, and there is nothing to merge from this list. Not the times on those AfDs, and check the articles since. For Marmalade Boy, those "minor characters" were long removed as part of its improvement and clean up in aim for FL. Other FL character lists also removed minor characters as part of such improvement, because they are not noteworthy. Any minor characters already receives all sufficient coverage in the summaries of the episodes they appear in. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, yes, a list per year seems a bit much (I haven't checked all of them but I imagine there would be a lot of repetition if nothing else). However, I think one list is allowable. Also, while WP:ITEXISTS isn't valid, AfD precedents are. Actually, with no proper guideline, even WP:ITEXISTS may have some application as a de facto policy until a de jure policy is created. In the meantime, I have started a discussion at the Village Pump to look for advice: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Advice on Lists of Minor Fictional Characters. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Standard fictional list that meets guidelines. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Collectonian and Bali ultimate, above. This is basically a discrimination against trivial information issue; that's *why* they're minor characters. Take it to Wikia, where they welcome cruft. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 18:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with provisions; this list is somewhat misnamed, as a number of its characters are notable contract players (past and present) who simply don't need their own articles for one reason or another. What's really lacking in these cases are 1) citations asserting notability etc., which exist aplenty out there, and 2) some restraint on the part of the fangirls when recounting plotlines. The truly minor characters (and there truly are some here) need to be cut out, the others sourced and their coverage trimmed, and this list moved to Days of our Lives miscellaneous characters or something. I would say delete and start over, but a lot of work has been put in here that can be repurposed.— TAnthony^Talk 21:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a description of each named character is appropriate, even when there are a great many of them, as here. The description should be a short one, but there is no reason for saying they should not be there. I find such a list much clearer than relying on following through episode descriptions--but for those who like it the way Collectonian suggests, they can have that also. We're NOT PAPER, and a limited amount of overlap is not a bad thing. There is still a distinction from a fan site: a fan site permits every possible detail, and we do not. Attempts to remove combination articles and lists is an attempt to whittle down the coverage of fiction, and that goes against the basic concept of a modern encyclopedia. We do not necessarily have agreement on how much detail to have, but removing the place to put it will short-circuit any possible compromise. I hope that was not the intent here. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 26 January 2010 (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.