Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillian Andrassy Lavery

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 October 15.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 December 23.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 merge page with ~~List of All My Children characters~~ List of All My Children miscellaneous characters, amended per this discussion. (non-admin closure). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Andrassy Lavery

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

This article doesn't have notability establised from third-party publications. I'm not sure if self-publications help keep this article strong; I am not confident about this article's content. It may appear plagiarized without citations. Also, this article has been recreated from Gillian Andrassy ever since it was redirected to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. ~~--Gh87 (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)~~ I vote delete. --Gh87 (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It's fairly simple to redirect this article to List of All My Children characters or to the list you mentioned. When IPs or newbie-ish users revert you, you are supposed to revert them, report them and get the redirect protected. Needlessly nominating these articles -- articles that don't gain enough traction -- for a deletion debate and destroying what could be redirects is absurd. 110.88.209.200 (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "When IPs or newbie-ish users revert you, you are supposed to revert them, report them and get the redirect protected." Actually, a proper response would be to discuss the article with the person (providing some guidance when appropriate), with the goal of working together to improve the article or determine consensus to redirect. You might even consider requesting a third opinion. But "revert, report, protect"? Fairly simple that there is a better choice. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 02:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Cindamuse, you don't know how the majority of these soap opera editors are, do you? Most of them are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. And when they are informed of them and given reasons why an article should be redirected, they ignore that and then recreate it. If you notice, Gh87 explained the reasons the article should be redirected in his or her edit summary. But these editors did not listen and simply recreated it. Even now, the article is a copy-and-paste move of some sort because most of the edit history is missing, which should have been fixed. They had to have seen the edit history just to undo the redirects. They just didn't care. And when it's obvious they don't care, I would say, yes, they should be reverted and then reported. Only reported after trying to engage them in discussion about it, of course. If that doesn't help, because more and more editors (or the same one under different IPs or user names) keep recreating, then getting the redirect protected is the best choice. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The article should be merged into List of All My Children miscellaneous characters due to the notable value of the character. Even though it does not warrant an individual article, the character should remain as part of a minor/miscellaneous article.Casanova88 (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject and the article is a a plot-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Casanova88. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in sources that can WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This was a very notable character on All My Children albeit a decade ago. This is a fictitious person WP:GNG standards should be laxer. Wlmg (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should WP:GNG be laxer than it already is? Can you explain your opinions about WP:GNG please? --Gh87 (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge and of course redirect. No reason against a merge has been given by anyone. And we have never had any agreement about the proper standards for fictional characters--there are some very long discussions in multiple places; it remains unclear whether the GNG in any form is the suitable rule, and each case must be considered individually, using whatever standard the people at the discussion care to adopt. It also remains undetermined whether the rule against plot only discussions of a fictional work apply to individual spin-out articles, or only to the coverage of the work as a whole. I have some pretty definite views on the matter, but the general discussions were perhaps the least satisfactory of any I have had at Wikipedia, as all attempts at compromise were prevented by one side or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. Inclusion is encyclopedic as a character in a long-running television program, however, the subject is not considered a major character. "It may appear plagiarized without citations" lacks applicability with our deletion policy. If you can substantiate a copyright violation, that is fine, but vague speculations do not benefit a deletion discussion. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 02:15, 15 October 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.