Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Hughes and Margo Montgomery

Tom Hughes and Margo Montgomery

[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)

No evidence of passing NFICTION/GNG, BEFORE only shows mentions in passing. And in general, we don't need THREE articles about two fictional character (through it seems one is already a redirect). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. The Survival of Soap Opera: Transformations for a New Media Era: "As soaps entered the height of their fantasy phase in the early 1980s, Tom's and Margo's love story became one of the greatest examples of the action-adventure and fantasy romance of soaps during this period." Also coverage in Staying Tuned: Contemporary Soap Opera Criticism, Broadcast Writing and As the World Turns: The Complete Family Scrapbook. I'm sure there's more. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NEXIST. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge WTF, we do not need an article covering a fictional couple when both fictional characters already have their own articles: Margo Hughes and Tom Hughes (As the World Turns). If NEXIST, put your sources on their pages...or merge those into this page...or trim them all down, what a ridiculous violation of WP:NOTPLOT. (Along with many of the 60 other articles on the show's characters). Reywas92^Talk 03:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the way the page is written, then WP:FIXIT; the deletion process isn't meant to solve that problem. The question here is whether this couple is notable or not, and the sources show that it is. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I'd be happy to prune/merge/redirect all this excess plot silliness. But yes, you are allowed to suggest something in an afd besides deleting a page outright or keeping it without change! Just because the sources discuss their relationship as List of As the World Turns characters, they do not mandate that we must have three article for two characters – preposterous! The sources could just as easily be applied to the unreadably long History of As the World Turns. This is already wholly redundant to the plot cesspits of the character articles where you can put your sources too. Reywas92^Talk 08:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine, I agree that it's not a good article and definitely needs improvement. I'm saying that people shouldn't throw something into AfD with "no evidence of passing GNG" when a 15-minute search on Google Books finds a reliable source that shows it's a notable subject. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect somewhere relevant. This is such a bizarre way of organizing information. It could be useful if both characters have articles so full of their own information that even beginning to cover the relationship would be impossible, but that seems like it'd be an extremely rare occurrence. TTN (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a supercouple is very important in analysis of soap opera narratives; it's not bizarre at all in that field. See Luke and Laura for the most famous example. Also Soap Opera Supercouples: The Great Romances of Daytime Drama, Soap Opera Confidential: Writers and Soap Insiders on Why We'll Tune in Tomorrow as the World Turns Restlessly by the Guiding Light of Our Lives, Worlds Without End: The Art and History of the Soap Opera, the chapter "The Siren Call of the Super Couple: Soap Operas' Destructive Slide Toward Closure" in Staying Tuned: Contemporary Soap Opera Criticism, Serial Monogamy: Soap Opera, Lifespan, and the Gendered Politics of Fantasy and Screen Couple Chemistry: The Power of 2. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But we are not discussing the deletion of an article on the concept of supercouple.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to TTN's claim that this is "a bizarre way of organizing information." Reception theory for soap opera narrative often looks at the appeal of a particular couple in a way that is separate from their impact as individual characters. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: What do you think about merging articles about individual fictional characters who are supercouples into their supercouple article? I don't think we need three articles, and splitting information like this is also a disservice for the reader. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thanks for asking. I don't think that any of the three articles are well-written according to Wikipedia standards. As you say, there's lots of plot and not enough real-world info or analysis on these articles, and this is sadly true for many soap opera related articles. I think if someone wants to do a proper job of clean-up and improvement on these articles, it would be very welcome, and they could determine the best way to present the information. This AfD process is probably not the right place to kick off an improvement drive; the merge would be done "under the gun" without taking due care. (See WP:NOTCLEANUP.) I think this process should focus on whether the subject of the article is notable. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist before No Consensus close
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]