Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:22, 4 November 2011

Mark Dalton (All My Children)

Mark Dalton (All My Children) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article is tagged for copyright infringements; it's already reported in Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2011 October 19. With the article short right now, this is the 2nd nomination for the article as AfD. Right now, this character is not notable. Probably he was in the 1980s to promote awareness of drug addiction, but this article does not receive interest from casual editors and experienced Wikipedians. Even those who dedicate soap operas did not address the problems of copyright infringements that I have seen lately and did not have interests to prove and establish this character's notability. Right now, I cannot propose a merge to either List of All My Children miscellaneous characters because of recent reports of copyright violations or List of All My Children characters because it is a brief list with inadequate summaries. If this article cannot be deleted, then what will we do with the article's introduction? --Gh87 (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Merge to appropriate character list; whether there have been or are currently copyvios on certain lists is irrelevant to whether the lists as topics should ultimately exist and whether this should be merged there. I don't see a valid deletion rationale at any rate; the nom appears to state that the character probably was notable in the 1980s, but "right now, this character is not notable". As with all of his other recent AFD noms, I don't see any indication that he has followed WP:BEFORE but instead nominated this purely on the current internal state of the article, and on his perception that no one has been working to improve this article. It's additionally a bad idea to have listed this here before the copyvio issue has been resolved, as that just muddies the waters, because whether an article currently is a copyright infringement is a completely separate issue from whether there ultimately should be an article on that topic. postdlf (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: No evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline or that the article can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work. With no sources, I do not believe that a merge is justified. Jfgslo (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Joseph Fox 01:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: "Right now, this character is not notable. Probably he was in the 1980s to promote awareness of drug addiction..." If he was notable, he is notable, no?--Milowent • 14:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I just made probably some sarcasm. He is to me non-notable, even with an actor's award for this character. There have been no experts and no non-fictional coverages on this character as far as I know. Even one documentary of All My Children is insufficient to help this article stand alone. Recently, I have realized that notability should not be temporary, which this character is no longer after the 1980s. --Gh87 (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Milowent is saying that once a person or character is notable, they will always be notable. The section you were attempting to point us to is Misplaced Pages:Notability#Notability is not temporary. It says: Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.

So to sum up, it's not saying "notability should not be temporary." It's saying "notability is not temporary." Your comment above, shown by Milowent, as well as your latest comment of "which this character is no longer after the 1980s" shows that you did not understand that. Sarcasm had nothing to do with it. 125.39.16.88 (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)
• AfD debates
• Relisted AfD debates