Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Kiviranta

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 no consensus, but leaning towards keep, so defaults to keep. Wizardman 17:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Kiviranta

Article about a fictional character of a soap opera. It has no real world information. It fails guidelines for WP:SOAPS. Magioladitis (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why did you place this in the "Places and transportation" category?--Oakshade (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. Obviously a mistake. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia generally has articles on fictional characters in major national TV shows. See Guiding Light (2000-present) list of cast/characters, for a soap opera example. There's no reason to single this one out. There's no "real world" information because it's a fictional character. --Oakshade (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list you shown me it's a perfect place for many nominations. Check the guidelines in WP:SOAPS:

Character articles should always be written from a "real world" perspective, and should definitely not consist simply of in-universe plot summary. As such, it should include:

Real-world dates for when the character was created
Which actors have played the character, and when
Any awards which were won by the actor for playing that character -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - That's an excellent case for article improvement, not deletion. That WikiProject Soap Operas (WP:SOAPS) project page (not by any means a notability guideline) you quoted was created for uniformity and improvement of soap opera character articles and doesn't mandate deletion. A wiki-improvement tag is more appropriate. I don't subscribe to the "We have to destroy this article in order to save it" mentality. --Oakshade (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response They are hundreds of fictional character articles not having any notability. The important is to improve the soap opera's article and the list of characters article. Individual articles for characters which is impossible a real world information should be merge or delete. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all impossible to improve this article, especially of that "real world information" that you feel the article must be deleted if it currently doesn't have (WP:SOAPS doesn't mandate deletion if an article is currently deficient of these things as you claimed). As it's major character in long running soap opera, all of the requested information can be found and likely known by millions of fans. Deleting is not the solution if an article needs work. --Oakshade (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another note, this article actually does show what dates the character was created (one of the the original characters) and which actor played the character and when (Piitu Uski for it's entire run). There were no awards for the actor playing the character so that last "requirement" doesn't apply. Under your own criteria, this article "passes" the style guidelines set up in WP:SOAPS. --Oakshade (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.
Comment The list of characters can be converted to something like the List of Family Affairs characters. Separate articles cannot be supported without any real world information. Most of the character articles violate the WP:FICTION guidelines. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PLOT (too little real-world context) and WP:N and WP:V (multiple independent secondary sources giving significant coverage are needed to demonstrate notability and to allow the reader to verify the content). Jakew (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep or Merge or redirect, depending on the importance of the character, but since a character might be a search term, the one thing that should not be done is delete. Spin out for major characters is still acceptable-- WP:PLOT is at this point totally disputed, and, in any case, only refers to articles which are only plot summary without other content. I would like to see evidence first that someone with access to Finnish language sources has at least looked for them. DGG (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and,. fwiw, there is no really agreed wording of WP:PLOT. at present it only indicates that articles should not be entirely plot summary. DGG (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...which this article is. It's only a plot but a line. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my previous comment. Eusebeus (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to facilitate discussion, I copy the relevant part from your comment there, although you didn't even bother to cut and paste: "Those aspects of WP:FICT which expand upon WP:NOT#PLOT are essentially an extension of consensus policy. There is general agreement that purely in-universe content is inappropriate for Wikipedia" Unfortunately, if anyone cares to go the the FICT page they will see right at the top: the following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. the reason it's only proposed is because there's no consensus, as the extremely long talk pages the demonstrate. probably it's time to mark rejected if people persist in refusing to compromise.DGG (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the text "played by Piitu Uski. Laura has been in the series since the beginning.[1] She appeared in the series in years 1999–2008." is real-world information. Does the nominator speak Finnish? Somehow I doubt they've looked for any sources in ANY Finnish newspapers. And non-project members are under no obligation to follow SOAPS. --Pixelface (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the degree of agreement and rationality at the SOAP guidelines might be a good example for some of the other discussions. According to them, all this needs is the addition of the real-world details about the character's part in the show. The people who do not want to follow reasonable compromise are not setting a good example here. DGG (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Pixelface It is like opposing an episode article to be merged because it states that this is the fifth episode of the series, so it contains real world information. I think I should write contains no real world information but trivial which it is already found in the list of characters article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ,,n (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with that: The soap is notable. I didn't Afd the soap! That the soap is notable doesn't imply that each individual character is notable! It's exactly like episodes and TV series. A soap it's much more that its characters. This is another reason I didn't make a group Afd.-- Magioladitis (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this organized, referenced, and well-presented article that even has an image. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:41, 11 May 2008 (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.