Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of Passions

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. The one "keep" does not address the notability of the topic, except to admit that the content is in fact not notable. Sandstein 19:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Passions

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

Delete as it fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. While I respect and admire the work put into this page, the children of the show's main characters do not have enough notability for their own page. Instead, the information about the children can easily be covered in the page about his or her parents. Aoba47 (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CSC clause 2 specifically calls out minor characters lists like this: we absolutely do not want individual articles for these NN elements of a notable fictional franchise, so we lump them all together in one place where they can be watched and trimmed appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archived comments

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Jclemens: Quite frankly, I still do not understand the need for this article. The information about these characters (children of the show's major characters) can easily be placed in the article about their parents. This fits this comment from the WP:CSC ("Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic.") so again I do not fully understand the need for this article when a "parent" topic or article (quite literally in this context) exists. Just to be clear, I am not calling for individual articles as I completely agree that these are NN elements so I am not entirely sure where you got that from my prior statement. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No one said you said these were anything other than NN fictional elements. If NN fictional elements are redlinked, however, they are more likely to gather new articles from well-meaning inexperienced editors. Per WP:CWW, if we delete this article, we can't reuse the content because attribution breaks. If it's redirected or merged, that can be dealt with, but not if it's deleted, which is what you proposed. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jclemens: Then, any links to the children should removed to avoid redlinks and the possibility of editors from either recreating this page or creating pages about individual NN characters. That is a very easy issue to fix so I do not understand the problem with that. I stand with my suggestion for deletion, because I do not honestly know where would you merge or redirect this information. I would be okay with individual redirects to the parents, but even then would you redirect to the mother or father (as both articles would contain information about the child or children)? I am also uncertain of where this could be merged to either. As for the content, it is entirely summary with only primary sources taken directly from episodes being used so there would not be a major loss of content as you mention above. I firmly believe this article is unnecessary and should be removed. If you believe a redirect or merge could work, I am open to the possibility, but I have doubts (which I have stated above). Aoba47 (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did you seriously just recommend removing redlinks? The only reason redlinks exist is that one author thought the characters important enough to cover, and started writing about them--quite extensively, as we can see here. If you think that is 1) a problem, and/or 2) deletion solves it, then I think you really need to reexamine how and why people contribute content to Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Jclemens: First, there is no reason to take that tone with me. Getting defensive or rude towards me solves nothing. I would prefer this to be a place of discussion rather than accusations. You have also not commented on my entire response, such as my question (Where would the characters be redirected if you believe that is an option) and instead choose to focus on one aspect of my response. Quite simply, these characters are NN and do not deserve an article of their own, even in this state, and can easily be placed in other articles covering more notable material/characters. I take issue with your comment that "one author thought the characters important enough to cover, and started writing about them--quite extensively, as we can see here" as just because one author thought something was notable does not immediately make that the case. As for the "extensive" work you mentioned, it is all from primary sources, which does nothing to establish the notability of the page.
      - In this specific case, I would recommend removing redlinks to characters that have been deemed NN and not important enough to cover in their own article. I understand and appreciate the value of redlinks to allow for future growth/expansion, but this is not one of those cases. I agree with TTN in that I do not see the value of a containment article. Again, I want this to be a safe place of discussion (which I thought Wikipedia was all about in the first place). Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Either way, I would suggest waiting until an outcome from this discussion is reached as this discussion will most likely lead nowhere. I respect you have a different opinion, so we should just wait and see where this goes for now. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You have simply failed to understand what I said, what tone I took in saying, and most importantly, why I said it in the first place. This convinces me that further investment in dialogue is simply not worth my time. My opinion stands. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @Jclemens: Okay, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You still have a very negative and condescending tone towards me. First, you question my judgement and now you get defensive and assume that I have failed. My only intentions when starting this dialogue was to understanding your opinion. That was all. As for the redlinks, I never said that I was against them. Not even once. I am against making links to NN material that has no likelihood of survival. I am sorry for wasting both of our time in my inquiry about your opinion especially since it, as you have plainly put it, "is simply not worth [your] time". I am sorry for trying to familiarize myself with Wikipedia and its policies further. My comment and nomination stands, and I will trust the judgement of whatever decision is made here. I have to say that this dialogue has been very disappointing and negatively reflects on Wikipedia as a whole, especially when it comes to a dialogue between a more experienced user and a new user such as myself. But I guess after I must have, as you so plainly put it, "simply failed to understand". This encounter has certainly changed my view of Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This does not establish notability. There is no need to cover every single character in a series. Some series may have hundreds of named characters (especially something that can go on for decades like a soap opera), but only the most core characters need any coverage. If these characters are not important, they don't need anything more than a brief inclusion on an episode list summary if they're even that relevant. Saying that a containment article is necessary is pointless. The main article can be watched and trimmed appropriately TTN (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article itself is poorly referenced and can easily be merged with, like what Aoba47 said, the respective articles for his or her parents. Carbrera (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List_of_Passions_characters_and_cast, Minor Passions characters, or respective articles on their parents. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability and poorly referenced article. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:26, 14 August 2016 (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.