Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sally Spectra

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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.

(non-admin closure) feminist #WearAMask😷 07:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Sally Spectra

Sally Spectra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged with notability problem since 2016, and a number of other issues since 2012. The current article is pure

WP:PLOT. BEFORE shows a number of mentions in passing, but nothing reliable, in-depth and going beyond PLOT or a sentence or two of passing remarks. Still, I have been positively surprised at people rescuing such soap opera bios before, so I am skipping prod and putting it here. Can anyone figure out if this is salvageable? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that my additions to the article demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Since I can’t access most sources given, I’m just going to go off what information they provide in the article. The article given to display her reception after the actor’s death does seem a little plot-focused instead of actual coverage, but I think it does contain genuine commentary and counts towards a GNG pass. The character also seems to have gotten coverage for being the first soap opera character to have a wax figure at Madame Tussaud’s, so I think this just passes GNG, even though the rest of the sources are passing mentions and/or in-universe material. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources identified and added (nice work
    WP:GNG. — Hunter Kahn 12:47, 14 April 2020 (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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.