Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Lovett

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. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ethan Lovett

Ethan Lovett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable soap opera character, fails WP:N and guidance at Wikipedia:SOAPS#Notability standards. ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep - the article is a new stub, and properly tagged as needing references. Unlike many similar soap opera character stubs, this character is actually the son of two very notable/famous characters from the series. I think we should give editors a chance to come up with some sources; as the character's paternity has just been revealed onscreen, I think at the very least the next Soap Opera Digest will certainly discuss it in a meaningful way.— TAnthony^Talk 18:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: Additional info and references have been added to the article since my comment above.— TAnthony^Talk 08:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Coverage of characters is not coverage of individuals. Ironholds (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure what you mean by that, this is a character article ... Anyway, I ask those following this AfD to check out the article again, as it has been beefed up today.— TAnthony^Talk 08:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per improvements. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep- Despite character being new, his mother and father, both big stars of the show, make him seem like a character who stay and join in the exploits. As such, the page should not be deleted. Citybug (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  Citybug, that isn't a valid keep rationale. Please quote some form of policy in your comment, or some reason more valid than "well his parents are important to fans of soap X, so he'll probably be important at some point in the future". Ironholds (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep - The character "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and the article has been expanded since the initial deletion nomination. Rocksey (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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.