Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Douglas (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Douglas

Ann Douglas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

A minor character played in... 10 episodes of the Bold and the Beautiful, which airs more than 200 episodes per year. Article contains no real world information and fails WP:SOAPS and WP:FICTION Magioladitis (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-Notable per WP:SOAPS and WP:FICTION.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 20:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 21:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - does not meet WP:SOAPS or WP:FICTION. Minor character, doesn't need separate article.--BelovedFreak 21:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, WP:FICTION is just a proposal and the nominator appears to not understand that. And non-project members are under no obligation to follow SOAPS. Betty White is a notable actress and 10 episodes is quite a stint as a guest star. Character articles for soap operas are preferable to having an article for all 5,303 episodes of The Bold and the Beautiful. --Pixelface (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  WP:N is not currently disputed. Could you please explain how this article meets the guidelines it contains? Specifically, where are the sources independent of the subject which have devoted substantial coverage to this character? Also, can you please address the fact that this article is entirely summary of the character's role in the plot with no real-world analysis, failing WP:NOT#PLOT? Lastly, if sources per my second question do not exist, how would it be possible to provide such real-world context that is verifiable and not original research? Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I have a creeping suspicion that Magioladitis is rather better informed than the above comment might suggest. The ongoing effort to deprecate our policies and guidelines is misplaced. Yes, aspects of WP:FICT are under discussion, notably when Spinouts are acceptable even if they contain no real-world information. That disagreement is a far cry from the longstanding and recently revitalised consensus at WP:NOT#PLOT which presents the very compelling argument that articles at Wikipedia must aspire to more than mere plot summaries or mere in-universe content. If the article has encyclopedic potential through demonstration of real-world impact or significance, of course it should stay. However, there is simply no source that I can find to provide substance to that claim. Thus, it should be deleted per our policies and guidelines. Eusebeus (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with your analysis of the current policy disputes and the way they manifest themselves in AFDs. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 22:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I could find no sources to indicate that this character is notable, and the article is entirely plot summary with no real-world context. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 22:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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.