Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zak Ramsey

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Ramsey

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article only has one site as a source outside of WP:PRIMARY sources, in-universe tagged since 2020, nothing found via WP:BEFORE outside of some discussion of the actor. Entire sections are unsourced. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*delete fails WP:GNG. - Altenmann >talk 16:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - correction to nominator: the article has one site as a primary source, with the remaining 6 references being non-primary sources... Subject meets GNG. – Meena • 17:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Meena: One of them seems to be an interview, though I cannot view it to truly verify. Interviews count under WP:PRIMARY. The other 5 all come from the same website, which I am fairly certain is strongly discouraged. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it is about a fictional character, then it is not primary, as obviously the fictional character cannot speak about themselves... DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ as the sources show notability. Only one is primary, and the others are not. The article needs a bit of work but deletion ≠ improvement. It would have been nice to have been told/wakened about this beforehand so we could have had more time to improve the article before being deleted rather than being rushed into improving it in a few days, especially as there is an active wikiproject aimed at the improving the Hollyoaks characters. Also, per WP:SOAPS and MOS:PLOTSOURCE, storylines sections don't need to be sourced. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Strong keep per the improvements made by Raintheone, as it now more sourced and less in universe.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have worked on the article today and I hope the improvements count towards it passing GNG/SIGCOV. I have added sourced content and rewrote sections. I hope this explains the fictional element more clearly and provides the real world perspective on the topic. I would like to you @(Oinkers42): and @Altenmann: revisit this in regards to the changes I have made. The article still needs work though and I will keep on looking for more content to add.Rain the 1 22:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to add more refs to the lede and storylines. But I agree now it is keepable. - Altenmann >talk 00:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you RT1 for your amazing help! Altenmann, thank you for agreeing but just a note: the storyline sections do not sources per WP:SOAPS and MOS:PLOTSOURCE. May I please ask why the lead needs refs? Everything there is sourced? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article meets notability guidelines. Soaper1234 - talk 20:26, 30 September 2023 (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.