Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Fowler

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 October 22.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Natalia Fowler[edit]

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

This article of a TV fictional character of All My Children lacks notability establishment, especially from third-party publications. TV.com is cited, but I am uncertain about its reliability because it is user-submitted, like IMDB. This article is written as a well-written entry, but the whole context may not have been referenced properly. The fact that the show is cancelled doesn't help matters. It was previously PRODded; the PROD was improperly contested by IP editor who believes that this character is "notable". ~~--Gh87 (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC) I vote delete. --Gh87 (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)~~ Right now there is only one citation, as the TV.com reference was removed as unreliable and user-submitted. As of this time, the whole article is all plot and short of perspectives outside fiction. Some people say: the fictional character may be notable, even if the show is cancelled, such as Sam Malone and Diane Chambers of Cheers and Jerry Seinfeld of Seinfeld. Same thing would have done for this character; unfortunately, this article very little improved before this AfD has been relisted recently. To condensate the plot, I must remove the irrelevant to this character; I could not tell which part is irrelevant. But the notability, significant coverage, and awareness from third-party and independent sources come first before condensating the plot. I barely understand how this character's role as either major or minor can suffice notability. Fiction alone is too insufficient to me, even if a plot summary is too long, and the description of portrayers of this character won't help suffice as I'm afraid. This article needs to be more than and far from resembling as one of the featured and good articles of EastEnders, Coronation Street, and their characters. ~~If very densed improvement doesn't happen soon, it may appear to have better chances of merging, redirecting, or deleting. --Gh87 (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)~~ The fact that this article hasn't improved from the plot-only state but has stayed this way which could violate WP:PLOT influences me to think: the fictional character is not sufficiently notable in and out of the soap opera coverages. I haven't seen a lot of news coverages for this character, especially in television-oriented and local news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh87 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 16 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The character is quite notable and is well-known and has correct and valuable information. At most, it should be redirected to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters in order to retain its value.Casanova88 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject and the content of the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work, unsuitable for Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major character, sufficiently sourced. The fact that the show has been cancelled has no bearing on this discussion. Please note that the television show itself serves as sourcing for fictional character articles. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only cited sentence is of her occasional appearances. The rest of the article needs more; there is still a lot of in-universes. --Gh87 (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I say keep, she was a major, pivotal character, especially in the return of her father Jesse, and has been apart of other really touching, strong, pivotal storylines. She's a major character. And once again, show is not cancelled. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 12:56PM 13 October 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:12, 15 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, Rcsprinter (message) 10:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major characters in major shows should have articles. That rule is not a formal guideline, because one or two stubborn people in the discussions over the last few years stonewalled against it, or any compromise whatsoever. So we unfortunately have to go case by case--any compromise, even one more restrictive than I would like, would be better than the current situation , with half of AfD devoted to these discussions. . But it what we usually do, and its what we should do here. WP:PLOT is properly interpreted as referring to the total Wikipedia coverage of a work, as often done by very unsophisticated editors here for minor fiction. Obviously any break-out article about anything primarily relating to plot or characters will necessarily be about the plot. (It would of course be easy enough to introduce minor material about such things as the exact timings of her scenes, but that's the sort of fan details we usually do not include. Does anyone here really advocate adding it, or think it would improve the article? DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 21 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, Sandstein 07:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I have relisted this discussion after overturning a non-admin closure following a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 22. Sandstein 07:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

commentLooking back, the argument that because it has not yet been improved it cannot be improved in the original nomination strikes me as particularly without basis in policy; the correct statement is just the opposite, NO DEADLINE. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 5 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.