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 moot. I believe the amount of cleanup that occurred during the debate was so substantial that it's hard to draw any conclusion from this one. I considered a simple relist (I would have archived most of the lengthy discussion below) but some of the earlier comments no longer apply to the revised version. I am going to begin a new AfD right away, though, because letting Flyer22 continue to work so hard is not right if the article topic is deemed to be improper, so I think we really need to figure that out. Mango juice^talk 16:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey[edit]

This page consists of noting but an excessively long plot summary of various episodes in a TV series. There are no significant secondary sources. It is full of Original research synthesizing plot elements and explaining the motives of characters. It has far too many fair use screen shots for our image policy. Most importantly, it has nothing but plot summary. According to WP:FICT Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. and Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction and Plot summaries should be kept reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply summarize them. It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own. This article violates all of these guidelines, and seems unlikely ever to include much "real-world context and sourced analysis". DES ^(talk) 15:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom. DES ^(talk) 15:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Right now this reads like a plot summary. It merely details the events between two soap opera characters. Also, no sources are provided that could verify any of the information. Unless a major overhaul occurs, delete per nom. --Cyrus Andiron 19:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Not sure how much improvement has taken place since the gargantuan series of comments below, but there is currently nothing on this page that couldn't (and shouldn't) be summarised in a few lines on the television programme's page. A1octopus 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent comment, after everything below. The plot has been greatly edited down more so to focus on the work rather than reiterating the plot. Mention of the couple's popularity is provided with a SID poll article. And an exmaple of their media press has been given with such articles as TVGuide, and the magazine Celebrity Living. Overall, of course, I'm very much dedicated to the article, as well as other articles on Wikipedia Flyer22 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. J.R. and Babe have a history separate from being about that of the show All My Children, as many couples of television shows have, which is why an article for that particular pairing may be created. The J.R. and Babe article has been improved to the point where it provides more references and sources than any other article similar to it. The setup has been changed/improved to give detail to the origin of the couple, and the summaries have been trimmed, but focus on the most important aspects of the couple's history, as do articles on fictional characters such as Anakin Skywalker go about doing. The J.R and Babe article stands at least as an example for what other soap articles should attempt to include in their pages. TVguide, about.com, Associated Content, and MediaWire are all reliabe independent sources apart from the television show and or company producing the show. More independent sources will be attempted as the article is improved. As I stated below, I don't feel that this article should most definitely be deleted. Flyer22 18:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please provide sources which show that this is a genuine supercouple? Have they won an award, or been cited as a supercouple in major press? --El on ka 00:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call them a supercouple, but I will try to find more sources apart from the production company proving that the couple is popular.Flyer22 06:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improving This Article[edit]

I am the creator of this page, and will work on improving it while it is up for deletion. All I ask is that it is taken into great consideration (as I'm sure it will be) in not being deleted. I am very new to wikipedia and am just learning the ropes. I'd read on creating pages, and didn't feel that this article was that beyond help, if needed improvement. When I first came to this page a year ago, it seemed fine. Then, as I came back to it a few weeks ago, it was deleted. I was not the creator of this article then, but I decided to register and create the article since it was popular as to some of its fans before. I welcome the most skilled editors to please assist me in improving this page, so that it is not deleted. As for the summaries, I was contacted by a friend on how one of his favorite pages Spike (Buffyverse) was greatly detailed, and that the detail improved the enjoyment of that article, thus I wanted the J.R. and Babe page to be detailed in the same effect. If it truly required for me to cut back on the summaries, which it seems so...unless I provide a link to such quotes within it, then I will, or I will provide the link within the quote. The Free Use Images, I'm not certain if I should have tagged all of them Free Use. I have noticed a few screenshots on some articles only needed the appropriate license, and not the tag of Free Use. I will work on all of that as well, of course.

I am greatly sorry for having caused this inconvience my first time out on a page. I truly do welcome any help from editors who would like to accompany me in bettering this page. Flyer22 18:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I am quite prepared to assume good faith, and to presume that you want to improve the article and the project. And given some of the articles that are out there, i can understand why you thought this would be wanted. The problem is that this is just a long summery of an aspect of the plot of a soap opera. Wikipedia is not in the business of re-telling stories of TV shows, novels, or other works of fiction. Articles about works of fiction should have relatively short plot summaries, enough so that the reader can understand what the work is about. Most of such articles should be about critical reaction to or analysis of such works of fiction, or their effects and influences on the non-fictional world, or the like. Please read our guidelines for fiction on this subject. Note that Wikipedia is not a directory says that wikipedia articles should not be a TV or Radio Guide, and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information says that "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot."
- In my view, for this article to survive, the plot summery would need to be cut down to one or two par graphs, maybe three, and a significant amount of content would need to be added dealing with the "achievements, impact or historical significance" of this aspect of this soap opera, and all of that would have to be supported by reliable sources, at least some of them independent of the show's producers. Note that fan sites are rarely reliable sources, because of the lack of an editorial process. I doubt that can be done on this topic -- i don't think the material is there. If not, the existence of these characters and their relationship could be covered briefly on the articles on the show as a whole. DES ^(talk) 21:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem that I have here is pretty much summed up in WP:FICT, an that we're not a soap opera guide. Now, if there were a wiki dedicated to soap opera, then we'd probably have something - but only over there. =^^= . Flyer22, kudos on you for creating this, but you might want to stick it in your user page somewhere and work on it there, if only to preserve the data. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editing Article. Thank you for your understanding. I have edited out the main trivial quotes in this article. And trimmed down the summaries, added sources, but I notice that you state that you feel that this article should be limited to only three paragraphs as one of the goals to save it. Please don't misunderstand my question of asking this, but can you please explain to me how my article on J.R. and Babe differs all that much in describing the events between this couple as compared to other articles on popular couples such as Ethan and Theresa or Shawn and Belle in which also describe the events of those couples?

I ask that, because if such articles such as those are allowed in their current format, I want the J.R. and Babe article to come as close to those articles in playing by the same rules as possible.
- I haven't looked at those, perhaps they should be deleted or trimmed also. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is generally not considerd an impressive arguemnet, the fact that soem articels do not meet standards does not mean that others don't have to. DES ^(talk) 00:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the summaries in the article J.R. and Babe do not differ that much in length from an article such as J.R. Chandler, and I really do want to know the questions I pose so I that I might better understand the differences in what is mentioned in my article in comparison to such other related fictional articles as those.

I will read the guidelines for fiction and do what all I must to save this page. Please try to answer the questions I posed. My main interest on this matter is to improve this page, thus is why I asked the above questions.Flyer22 23:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I contemplated a "weak keep" based on my belief that an otherwise valid article which contains too much plot summary should be edited, not deleted. Deletion is not a tool to improve articles. However, both J. R. Chandler and Babe have their own lengthy articles and it seems to me that the argument for keeping this as a separate article on the two of them as a couple is weak, despite the fact that, as the article's creator points out, there are similar articles on other soap opera couples. If the information can be readily incorporate into their individual articles, it seems to me that is the best solution. If the article is improved and shows a reason to exist as an independent article, I may revisit the issue. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am well aware that just because other articles similar to mine in layout exist doesn't mean that mine will be spared. However, I could see why mine was nominated for deletion earlier, but now I have trimmed it down, taken out uneccessary quote-mess, added valid sources, and stuck mainly to the history of the two characters just as other couple articles have. My main reason for mentioning the other articles is that I saw that one could mention the events of a character (and in more than three paragraphs) or couple as long as it's not total trivial matters, and as long as it has references and or valid sources linked to validate the claims. If my article is still considered for deletion now, I was only very much perplexed as to why, considering that many more fictional (not just soap opera) couples follow the same format as mine, and I wanted to know, if possible, why mine was pulled aside when it doesn't differ much from the others in format. I was only trying to better understand, and am sorry to have asked those questions if you found them besides the point. It's just those articles were very much the point when I decided to re-create the J.R. and Babe article. When I took a look over at guidelines for fiction, I saw that the character details in laying out a character's life does not differ all that much in format as to how my article is now. My article lays out the note-worthy events of J.R. and Babe's life as a couple together. I did read on major characters and or minor characters though, and I'm sure that I still need to better familiarize myself with wikipedia as a member here, which is why I will go back and read more extensively, seeing as though I didn't have enough time before.

On the subject that another editor here brought up that a J.R. article already exists, and that a Babe article already exists, I don't feel that those facts should have a huge weight as to deleting my article on J.R. and Babe. I would argue that the J.R. and Babe article is one in which combines the two for their own section, and gives important information on such events as how it was confirmed that J.R. is the biological father of Little Adam, and if it was confimed at all, which are two answers to questions that some AMC fans (to this day) still ask for information on, and sometimes don't find the details, but it is given in my article, and yet seems to always be excluded from other articles on J.R. and Babe. There are other links to validate other questions people frequently ask about this couple. And in the Notes section of J.R. and Babe, I mention what a huge impact the Babe-death had on the very real-life audience during the biggest animosity-filled fight between J.R. and Babe, giving added significance to this couple's history, in which were also big moments in the show's history. The J.R. and Babe article as it exists now pertains to the central knowledge of the couple, rather than how the article was when you first addressed me on this matter.

If you still feel that this article needs more slimming down when it comes to the summaries, I will do my best to ensure your wishes. Addressing the big moments in this couple's history is quite challenging to do in only limiting it to three paragraphs, thus I feel that as long I have provided the valid sources, and kept it to the huge facts as of detailing this couple's history as briefly as possible without eliminating vital information, the summaries shouldn't be cut down too far extreme than how they are now.

I look forward to working on this page a lot in the future, and with every added big incident between this couple, the above summaries within it will have to be shortened regardless. This couple seems to be if not over, then in limbo right now. Again, I will try my best to edit down even further on the two biggest sections of this article at this moment, and those sections are "The Baby-Switch Drama" section and the "Babe's Almost-Death And Fake-Death" section. If "The J.R./Babe/Josh Love Triangle" section can be edited down even further without deleting important facts, I will tackle that again as well. Thank you for your patience. And if you still are not satisfied with my aricle after that, please let me know of this, which I'm certain that you will.Flyer22 06:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not solely a question of what needs to coem out, but what needs to go in, remember, "...articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot."(from WP:FICT and WP:NOT) Unless you can add such context and analysis, sourced to one or more reliable sources then the whole article ought to go, IMO. If you can add and source such, then the plot summery ought to be cut down to just enough to give context to that part, also IMO. DES ^(talk) 17:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. DES, I just got some very helpful information on fixing my article via my talk page. I am doing everything to gain more knowledge on how my article should be. I realize that you may be worn out in dealing with me by now, but I really do appreciate your time and effort in addressing me on these matters. I stated that I would ask you the same question as I asked at the help desk for your take.

The question was/is... On the subject of "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance" I thought I had provided many valid sources in my article, but now I'm told that it shouldn't be limited to what it was. I needed to know exactly what I was missing in the "real-world" context issue. I mean, as for reliable sources, Wikipedia states that "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" and I thought that I did that in my article. Reliabe sources are about a trusted publisher making the same claims as you. Well, when addressing certain sections like "The Baby-Switch Drama"...I added sources as to that section's claims. And I'm thinking that TV Guide interviews on certain incidents as of a certain section would be a reliable source. But as for real-world context, I kind of got lost there, but thought something like "Cultural Impact And Popularity" that I added to this article is what you meant, what effect certain storylines as of this couple's history that were of historical significance.

I've read the guidelines for fiction, of course, but I was wondering if you could provide me with information directly. I just don't see how my article differs all that much from a soap couple article such as Luke Spencer and Laura Webber. But now I was told that even that article is poorly sourced. I'm not naming them to say that my article should skid by, and I don't mean to come off as slow in understanding things, but could you please tell me exactly what is meant by "real-world context" on this matter? I mean, if the Luke and Laura article adds enough of this, I was trying to be on the same lines as that article, because I really do like the way in which that article is set up, but if I shouldn't follow it, as it now seems apparent, I'm looking for a better example so that I may get a true representation of how my article should be. I looked at the Superman article and some other fiction layouts to learn, but, of course Superman has huge historical significance anyhow. And I thought that I should get get in contact with some editors who work on editing some soap opera articles to help me, but a few I clicked on didn't seem to have active talk pages. I also love science-fiction/action-adventure material, but I was more so focusing on looking at soap opera articles for this matter, which now I'm told isn't a great idea to base my outline on soap opera articles.

If you feel that you can answer my questions in better detail, please do, such as the "How to add reliable sources" issue. I finally feel as though I'm getting the hang of what needs to be done as of "Historical significance" and or "sources"...but I still would love to read your comments further concerning this. Flyer22 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By "real world context" I mean that such an articel should indicate the effects of the fictional work or character outside the fictional context. For example the artilce on Sherlock Holmes discusses how the character has been an influence on other writing, and how real people have writen about the character (outside of the original stories) and how such things as museams have been created focusing on the character. Another possible aspect of a valid articel would be sourced analysis, menaing that people not affiliated with teh show have writen about this couple (as a couple) analyizing ther characters or somethign about them, in a citable source (not a blog or fan-style web site, but a published source). Comments on how they relate to or differ from other characters, how they ahve influenced other actgors or writers or shows, or the effect they ahve had in the wider culture would als be appropriate, again only if proerplyu cited to a reliabel source. Part of teh poitn is that fictional characte such as Superman can have such articels written about them precisely because they have "huge historical significance" and it appears that these charactrs do not.
- The "Cultural Impact And Popularity" section does begin to address the kind of think I mean. But it still has problems. For example you say "The J.R. and Babe romance is considered one of the few soap opera couples that have super couple potential" Who says so? There is no source cited. The sources you do cite are interviews with cast members or polls taken by the producer, which are not independant sources, and one article that looks to me like a blog, but perhaps woudl qualify as a reliabel source. But look at the huge disproportion between this section and the rest of the article. The plot info should be ther jsut to expaln what this is about, so it should probably wind up shorter than the "Cultural Impact" section. Overall i can see that you are trying hard, but i just don't think this topic has much place here. DES ^(talk) 22:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you mean now, DES. Another editor even broke it down to me like this:

-- J.R. and Babe are a fictional couple. Real world context would be things like:

the actors who play them

inspiration from their lives which the actors use for their characters (that is, what they bring to their roles)

the people who developed the characters, the romance, and wrote their lines

the inspiration for the couple and their ongoing relationship (how the writers came up with it)

behind the camera politics

the impact the fictional couple have had on viewers, politics, society... and the world

the fictional couple's popularity

number of posters, t-shirts, and coffe cups sold with the couple on them

...and so on --

I thought that's what real world context meant. I get what is needed, and I feel that I can do it. If you are willing to give me some more time to gather the article as it should be, then I should have an even futher overhaul soon. I'm thinking that I won't have the changes show up on the page yet until I've pieced it all together. Here's good luck to me. You're terrific in your assistance. Flyer22 00:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - long and tearful story just like most soap operas. Recommend to shorten this out to one page just like them scientists in Physical Review demand and conserve the important references. One page will do it. greg park avenue 22:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated The Article[edit]

Well, DES, I fixed up the article, added everything that needed to be added, trimmed down the summaries once more, such as The Baby-Switch section and The Love Triangle section, and now the summaries pretty much match in length to that of such other fictional characters' life, like Spike (Buffyverse), and I really do believe that this article is valid now. I feel a lot better about it, and I am glad that you called me out on fixing it up. It really does seem like an article combining the characters of J.R. and Babe, rather than what it was before. All I can do now is wait. Flyer22 13:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this is somewhat improved, there are still multiple screenfuls of plot summery, versus a few paragraphs of other stuff. Also the writing is rather incoherent, but that is an editorial matter ("...the power of their love has been referenced more than once in the show to that of supercouple..." [is compared meant here?]; "One of her character creations in general, Babe Carey, first sprouted up in 2003" [mixed metaphor]; "This time between J.R. and Babe would come to be the day in which Babe would describe as the happiest day of her life." [misplaced word]; "When J.R. tried to murder Babe, and yet the couple was still portrayed as true loves to each other, it sparked a perplexing, 'former debate among soap opera viewers and viewers of television shows in general" [when did is stop being a debate? and who was perplexed by it?]; "Jacob Young's very realistic portrayal of an alcoholic battling his inner demons, who also couldn't fully grasp why he'd tried to kill his wife got him and his character noticed by PRISM..." [Wrong antecedent, unless it is the demons who had trouble understanding Young's motives]; etc). There are also lots of weasel words ("dishing out what many considered a complete overhaul of their beloved drama"; "Many fans felt that J.R. should have served time for his crime.") and grandiosities ("The events listed in this section occur from the huge history-shaping AMC/One Life To Live crossover"; "The events listed in this section occur from the greatly controversial AMC Satin Slayer, The Fusion Serial Killer storyline"). The current version also seem to have lots of [[WP:NOR|original research], and many of the sources now cited are either bloggers, fan sites, or provided by the production company or the network, i see few if any reliable, independent sources. I still thank this is worth deleting, perhaps after it is copied to the new soap operas wiki on Wikia, but it is a significant improvement over the earlier version. DES ^(talk) 16:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Note I will clean up what you mention on the writing aspect.

As for the references, I wouldn't consider TV Guide a fansite, but I get that you mean more of the references should be like that of TV Guide or the Associated Content reference. I know that I mentioned one blog site, but as for the ones pertaining to Dixie's death, that was more so to validate the impact of Dixie's death, but I will delete those. By "fan site", I would have thought that you meant a J.R. and Babe fansite, which, of course, isn't in my references. But by "sources supported by the production company or network"...you must mean the fact that some of it comes from abc.com. I would argue that considering that J.R. and Babe are a couple from a soap opera, the fact that most of their portrayers and or the creators of their characters' interviews would come via abc.com is to be expected. Sure, they are not characters from a show such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where tons of sources are available apart from the production company in which supported that show, but I don't feel that it makes the notion of a J.R. and Babe article on Wikipedia being useful and or sound any less valid.

I really do feel that this is one of the better soap opera couple articles on Wikipedia, though there is always room for improvement, which I will continually work on, but I strongly disagree that deletion is the best way to go here. This article at least attempts to provide and or does provide some valid sources and references...while other soap opera couple articles do not. This, I feel, is what sets the J.R. and Babe couple article apart from the other soap couple articles. If all soap couple articles went by the criteria in which you make known, DES, then I feel that we would be on the road to better soap articles in general as well. As for the summaries, I was under the impression that the length of the summaries are in accordance to other such fictional characters' summaries. However, I take what you state on all matters regarding this article into great thought and apply it as necessary.

I appreciate your thoughts on this article having been significantly improved. It is because of this improvement that I feel that this article would be better addressed on the topic of cleaning it up instead of deleting it. I will look over the editorial issue, and do what I must there. I just cannot agree with you that this article should be deleted.

All that said, you truly have made me better in composing articles on Wikipedia, though this (as I'm sure it showed when I first started) is my first one.Flyer22 21:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Of couse, i rather doubt that any "soap oepra couple" is likely to be the subject of a properly encyclopedic article, and some others that exist may need to be addressed after this one. Perhaps it is time to hear from editors othe than Flyer22 an myself. DES ^(talk) 22:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, whoever created and or helped to update the soap couple article Luke Spencer and Laura Webber could have/can still have access to a lot of sourced material apart from ABC or a publisher of a soap opera magazine for that couple, I feel...with that couple's impact, and how they spun the supercouple definition/era. That's definitely one soap opera article that one could have total unlimiting gain with.Flyer22 23:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback. I know that this won't help save my article, but I thought that I'd mention it, because it made me so proud of the article. It's not feedback that I asked for either. In other words...I didn't go to any forums and say, "Hey, what do you think of the J.R. and Babe article on Wikipedia?" I mean, really, I want to stay anonymous as having created anything on Wikipedia, because it just feels right. So I was pleasantly surprised when I recently came across comments that have made me believe in this article all the more. The best thing is that these weren't comments from fans of this couple. It seems that a few people, such as fans of the Zach Slater and Kendall Hart couple, and a few others have noticed this article and have expressed that they wish the Zach and Kendall article was like this one, or that this article is the best soap couple article that they've seen on Wikipedia (I know, huh, my exact thoughts in this debate, though I'm biased), but they mentioned things such as not knowing that the J.R. and Babe romance was based on the Adam/Dixie/Tad love triangle, or that Jacob Young had been nominated for PRISM for his role of J.R. Chandler during that highly alcoholic, homicidal state of his. They even discussed clicking on the link, and being surprised that the proof was there, although my personal feelings are that Wikipedia is pretty valid most of the time.

Again, I know that this will play little role, if any, in reconsidering to delete this article, and what AMC fans think isn't weight to if an article is deleted or not, but I feel even more now that this article is valuable in information. It's more than what you'd get from just reading the J.R. article, or the Babe article alone. I'm improving this article everyday, and can't help but wonder how helpful it will be to people in the future. Flyer22 20:02, 13 May 2007 (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.