History of All My Children – Although arguments are marginally split, the deleted articles have absolutely no sources between then and therefore count as original research. DRV can't be about restoring unreferenced and unverified OR so the outcome has to be endorse deletion. My advice to the nominator is find some sources discussing the history and write a new article and see how it fares. A 4 year old AFD isn't going to have much value in considering a G4 of an entirely new article but please be aware that GNG applies and if you produce something without references then it will end up at AFD again. – SpartazHumbug!04:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The essay, WP:AADD, is not followed, although it is not a policy. The closer nominator was banned for sockpuppetry. I don't know why the AfD's decision should be overturned, but many people voted delete for similar reasons in AfD, and the articles were deleted four years ago. However, the arguments may not meet current administrators' standards of judgments from administrators, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Guiding Light and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of As the World Turns may result either keep or no consensus. I will withhold my vote until I see majority of endorse. To be honest, these articles may have been very messy without proper citations and notability before deletion. I would recommend userfication or similar before these articles are officially recovered by consensus. —Gh87 (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)—Gh87 (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC) --Gh87 (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse last time I checked wp:PLOT was still policy, so the argument for deletion in this AFD has not changed a bit. Thank you for pointing out those AFDs. The first As the world turns one is heading towards merge, but the second one is a problem.Yoenit (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I went there to teach people about wp:PLOT and ended up voting keep all in the guiding light AFD. Still pondering the implications of that, but I might change my vote later on. Struck some parts of my earlier comment at least. Yoenit (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until we see the result of the two AfDs mentioned. I agree consistency is a virtue, and the decision on those is likely to show whether consensus has changed. I certainly hope it has: WP:PLOT remains policy, but only because stonewalling has prevented sufficient agreement of a consensus wording to replace it. But it is best interpreted by considering that it refers only to the total Wikipedia coverage of a fictional topic; since the fiction is covered in considerable detail in other respects, a split of the plot from the general article can be justified for a sufficiently complicated fiction. Clarity will benefit from having them merged into one article, however, and I hope the current AfDs lead to that result. If, as Yoenit says, they result in merge, than a reversal of the decision toa restore and merge would be the best result here. DGG ( talk ) 07:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not accused closing admin for abusing discretion. For your information, I have recently corrected my grammar, so I hope for no further misleading interpretations. --Gh87 (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
