Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Haskey

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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al Haskey

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This fails to establish notability. If there's anything more than trivial soap opera news articles mentioning the character's name a single time, then that's something more than I'm willing to deal with in a cursory search. TTN (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Really? The PROD was removed as an editor began work to improve and source the article, and this AfD was opened eight minutes later. You haven't given the editor or the article a chance at all, and it comes across as pointy. I'd recommend merging to a relevant character list if nothing can be done, but the character is a regular on a BBC daytime soap, with a few award wins and nominations that are now mentioned & sourced within the article. A quick Google search is promising source wise, though to those who are unfamiliar with the subject area, it might not look like it. - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If someone removes a PROD without a comment, most of the time it's simply a decline without improvement. I don't expect the whole detailed message on the talk page shebang, but some mention of "going to improve the article" in the edit summary would help. I'd disagree that mere nominations in such a narrow reward space mean much of anything towards notability though. TTN (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do not assume good faith then. I removed the PROD and minutes later began more edits. This AFD was retaliation. Do not be so hasty with these PRODS and AFDs. These are not tools for your one-upmanship.Rain the 1 23:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD is due to the fact that you made no comment and made two cursory edits having nothing to do at all with solving the issue noted in the PROD. I admit I may be jaded, but that's probably, without exaggeration, the exact trend in 95% of undone PRODS. TTN (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This clearly passes WP:GNG... Just because an article has little sourcing does not mean that it isn't notable. Al Haskey is a regular on a nationwide soap opera watched regularly by millions of viewers daily. There are plenty of independent and reliable sources out there. – DarkGlow (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, DarkGlow. I'm afraid Wikipedia does not work the way you put it. We need sources! In fact, without sources there can be no notability. This much is clear and for this reason Wikipedia notabiity (aka Wikinotability) is not the same as how we understand notability in real, daily life. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: I'm not sure you understood my phrasing. What I meant is that before the article was expanded, it had little sourcing, therefore it was believed he was not notable. There are lots of sources out there which can be used, therefore they just needed to be added to satisfy GNG (which they now have). Perhaps my wording was a bit confusing. In short, the article just needed development from sources we already have available. – DarkGlow (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The impressive expansions and improvements by Raintheone in recent days with cited reliable sources establish notability to the point that this article should be kept. (For what it's worth, I believe TTN acted in good faith with the PROD and subsequent AFD; if TTN had known or had been told there were significant improvements ongoing and did the AFD anyway, that would be one thing, but I don't think that was the case here or that there was any malicious intent.) — Hunter Kahn 15:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why are soap opera news articles considered insufficient? The fact that multiple independent soap opera magazines exist suggests that there's interest in the subject. Toughpigs (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above discussion. There is enough coverage to support WP:GNG. Aoba47 (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's been a regular character on a daily BBC1 soap with millions of viewers for 7 years and the article's been expanded now so I would have to agree with the other "keep" votes Ichosethisusername (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since subject comfortably passes WP:GNG on the basis of sourcing. Now, could everyone join in on the reviving WP:NFCHAR? -The Gnome (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2019 (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.