Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Vale

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 of the debate was REDIRECT ALL to Current Home and Away characters. There's clearly no consensus to delete, but this new article is constructed directly from the individual ones, appearing to incorporate all the information in them. So, I'll apply redirects to each article, which is an ordinary editorial decision. -Splash^talk 00:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda Vale (and other Home And Away characters nominated for AFD -- Daniel Baker, Matilda Hunter, Ric Dalby, Martha McKenzie, Kim Hyde, Beth Hunter, Barry Hyde, Tasha Andrews, Irene Roberts, Flynn Saunders, Alf Stewart, Leah Patterson Baker, Jack Holden, Sally Fletcher, Tony Holden, Robbie Hunter, Cassie Turner, Lucas Holden)

Delete Most (if not all) the articles for Home And Away are very short and the characters wouldn't pass the "google test" if they were real people, much less characters on this TV show. The vast majority's #1 hit is their respective WP article that has very little information. A concise page listing all the characters would be the best way to handle this on WP, if necessary at all. Dbchip 16:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. If you want to merge articles, merge them. Uncle G 16:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The merger document doesn't seem to cover a scenario where you're merging multiple pages into one and don't intend to keep the originating pages. For example, these articles don't have any inbound links besides eachother and aren't necessary to keep or redirect. Dbchip 16:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's because such a scenario isn't permissible. If you want the text merged, the source articles may not be deleted. If you want the source articles deleted, you may not merge the text. Decide. Uncle G 17:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, thanks, changed to Delete above accordingly.

*Delete per above. Home And Away is the place for that sort of thing. Dan 18:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC) *Delete These characters do not seem to pass the google test. Separate articles for each of these fictional characters seems excessive, especially with the brevity of some of the articles. -- Bovineone 18:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• I note that the original articles could have been turned into redirects and these merged into one big article with no need for AfD intervention. And then even if we wanted to merge and delete the redirects, we could move the page history elsewhere, if it was needed. Morwen - Talk 18:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Lacking any history to preserve and unnecessary clutter of the namespace in my opinon. Still needs to be notable to warrant a redirect. Dbchip 18:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'd say we should hold off the deletion yet until someone with indepth knowledge of H&A could come and merge the details either into the character section of Home and Away or else their own article, say, Characters of Home and Away. I'd like to point out how Neighbours has done this. They have a families and other characters section on their page detailing current characters, with a separate article for past characters. I think H&A should go along similar lines. Afterwards I think we should deleted what remains of the articles. Evil Eye 19:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Eastenders has individual profiles for characters. I can't see why Home and Away should be any different. Englishrose 19:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know that the two are comparable or that the precedent of other shows changes the fact that most of these characters are not notable and have only a handful of google hits with the WP article being #1. Dbchip 20:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The Beth Hunter article is detailed and would be useful to someone wanting to know about the series. No doubt so would the others. GRuban 20:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I would also accept Merge in support of Evil Eye's work. Either way works for me. As Honbicot writes below, this is information that is actively interesting to millions of people now (interesting enough for hundreds of them to make pages about it!) and will still be interesting to hundreds of people -- all over the world, not just in the neighborhood of one parking garage -- researching the show after it goes off the air. That's as much as you can say about any encyclopedia article. GRuban 15:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Potential for being useful isn't a metric for inclusion on WP. For example, you could write an article on a parking garage that would be useful to someone wanting to know about parking there, but that doesn't mean it's notable or worthly of a WP article. Dbchip 20:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • These characters are of interest to millions of people (not including me as I've never watched the show), so that comparison has no value. Honbicot 21:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A natural part of wikipedia's growth. Honbicot 21:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The ones I checked passed the "google test". ReeseM 21:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Like this[1] or this[2] or this[3]? Again, fails, and completely not notable. Dbchip 21:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Try searching "Dan Baker" with "Home and Away" instead of "Daniel Baker" as the vast majority calls him Dan. [4] Amanda Vale and Lucas Holden are very new additions, thus will take time to get google hits. They have yet to appear in the UK, thus I have no idea who they are and they might even have shortened names themselves. Englishrose 22:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Got it. Minimally, the article should be renamed to reflect the most common name. If the commonly used name isn't even right, it calls the accuracy of the whole thing into question.Dbchip 23:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as character bios for soap operas are the job of a fansite, which is one of the things WP:ISNOT.

• Changing vote to Merge in support of a fine piece of work by User:Evil Eye. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for all the reasons given above. We need more good bios like these. -- JJay 02:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm genuinely puzzled by that remark. Why do we need more bios of fictional characters? I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopaedia? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with bios of important fictional characters in an encyclopedia. Where would we be without articles on Zeus, Harry Potter (character), Gandalf, Falstaff or thousands of others? Those are just 4 characters I thought of off the top of my head, but they are excellent articles, better than most in the Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with being fictional. Even television characters are certainly not a waste of space. GRuban 15:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Listify. I would only suggest keeping important character profiles for main characters a la Buffy Summers or Willow Rosenburg in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. None of the nominated articles seem to fit that calibur. If, once the fancruft has been deleted, an entry in the list gets too big for the page, then it should be split off. Chanlord 03:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • To say that all of those characters and are not main characters, thus not important to Home and Away is rediculas. Irene Roberts has been in it since 1992), Flynn Saunders - is extremely popular, Finally Alf Stewart and Sally Fletcher have been in Home and Away since the very first episode and both hold the Australian Record for longest running actors on a Soap Opera. Englishrose 10:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (or at least merge). Notable characters from a notable Antipodian soap. Youngamerican 04:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Change vote to redirect to new article created by EvilEye. GFDL, then, requires that these articles be kept as redirects, so no deletes should be done. Youngamerican 13:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Englishrose. EastEnders and Coronation Street both have articles for individual characters.
• Comment (and vote at end). I've decided to go through with the idea I mentioned above and I'e created a new article incorporating most of the info from the individual articles. Thinking about it now, maybe it should have been done on my user pages or something, but it's too late now (sorry). You can find the article at Current Home and Away characters. You can see it is rather a rough effort and some characters would need to be expanded while others seriously cut back (we don't need details of every story every characters has been involved with). I also propose a second article, Past Home and Away characters to which this information is moved if/when a character leaves. I feel it is better to have all this in one article as it compares H&a WITH EUALLY POPULAR SOAPS (LIKE neighbours) rather than comparing it with soaps which have much higher global viewing figures or are more widely known about (like Easterners and Coronation Street). It also provides an easily comparable source detailing info on all characters in one place, rather than having many different articles with very little info in each. If we want to keep thi article, we would need to make a link on the main article page, do some serious work on improving the content and I propose a box on the page detailing and ranking the episode and order characters first appeared (like in the Neighbours article. My vote for these articles is then redirect to Current Home and Away characters.Evil Eye 12:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to list of characters article.--nixie 12:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Change vote to Redirect to EvilEye's article. I'm still not 100% convinced of the need for a separate article, but I'll give it a chance. Dan 15:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to the list of characters articles per Evil Eye and WP:FICT. None of the individual characters have had a notable enough impact on popular culture to warrant their own articles, and most of them are short enough to be merged into a single article. Extraordinary Machine 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per user Englishrose. I'd also add that H&A is a very famous programme in (at least) Australia and the UK. --kingboyk 19:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Evil Eye's list. I remember seeing each one of this articles being created when I was in RC patrol, and thinking to myself that it wouldn't be long before I saw them here in AFD. Ah, Wikipedia, to know thee is to love thee.JoaoRicardo^talk 20:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to the new unified character page that was created. A single page much more consisely describes things. -- Bovineone 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as above, Eusebeus 18:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

KEEP - H&A is one of the most popular and succesful shows in Australian history and has a HUGE fan base and following outside AU. With much more viewers than stale old unimportant shows like Eastenders and Coronation street - two shows that not a single soul outside the UK cares about. The Idea of deletion is anopther example of the UGLINESS of colinalism and bigotry- one thinks only American characters from buffy should be allowd to saty and a british poster thinks someone actually cares about Eastenders and CS' who's number of viewers outside the UK (combined) is not even a quarter of the H&A viewers.

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.