Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.C. Mallet

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 delete. Great lack of policy-based arguments, but a still greater lack of hard evidence for notability. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A.C. Mallet

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

How significant is this fictional character of Guiding Light? How influential is this character? How important is this character? Reliable sources, including of third-party and of independent, have not been found; even Google Books has his name in directory prints, which are not reliable at this moment. The news have not mentioned him for many years since his debut; even soap opera periodicals mention news about the portrayers' comings and goings. —George Ho (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was a long running character on the longest running scripted series in TV history. He is notable. Vincelord (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To have been a long running character on the longest running scripted series in TV history and yet not have gained enough coverage to easily deflect an AfD? Does nothing but add weight to the delete argument. Rubiscous (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Soft Keep. I take Rubiscous' point, but I feel this is a soft keep. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – a recurring character for almost 20 years a significant character and is well deserving of an article. Mice never shop (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2011 (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.