Deletion of Hugo Austin

Comment: per . There is strong consensus that this stuff should be in a character list
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: to List of Home and Away characters. Wow... these do need to be dealt with on a large scale as there has been a walled-garden created within this universe where all these characters are presumed notable. In reality they aren't and the resulting articles are terrible. Among the problems contained are a lack of real-world |notability, wholly |unreferenced sections and articles, |in-universe descriptions with no encyclopedic analysis, and large chunks of |original research. The best solution is to merge these all; this preserves the information that they are characters as well as removes most of the problems listed above. No prejudice to recreation of individual articles ''after'' there's evidence presented that an individual subject meets our policies and guidelines
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:INUNIVERSE||WP:OR)

Comment: per nomination. I've been aware of these for a couple of weeks. The stuff in these articles is completely |unverified content of interest only to dedicated fans which would be great for a fansite or a Wikia wiki, but |not the English Wikipedia. Many of them aren't even title roll characters - see eg Elliot Gillien. The reason some of them are stubs is that myself, Sarah and other admins have done our best to try and fix them so that they met  without failing . I can't even justify a weak keep for those as we are fighting a losing battle against an IP drone army (often to the point of 3RR) to maintain them as stubs, they would end up being a bunch of indef semi- or fully-protected articles about a series of minor characters of a soap opera which has little consequence outside the screen in even the countries in which it screens (Australia and the UK). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Buckton&oldid=296976347 Another good example of what we are dealing with (can anyone seriously tell me this stuff belongs in an encyclopaedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOT||WP:STUB||WP:V)

Comment: These articles are unmaintainable, unverified and unverifiable. Orderinchaos and I have recently been trying to clean up some articles in this area but once you remove all the unverifiable fan stuff that sounds like a bad youth novel, you end up being able to say little other than "X is a character in Y tv show, portrayed by Z".  And then you have to deal with the steady influx of anons and accounts with few edits and all to this subject area, who return regularly to edit war over restoring the junk and refuse to respond to messages and attempts to explain why this material isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Having been looking at these articles in recent weeks and trying to progressively clean out the unverifiable junk, I honestly don't think there's enough verifiable information published by reliable sources to support individual articles about the characters. I would prefer to simply delete all and protect against recreation as necessary and then monitor for forks, but ''at the very most'' I think the names could become protected redirects to a central list of characters, but as noted above, a previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amanda_Vale) was closed in this way and some weeks later these users came back and recreated the articles and made forks to get around the protected redirects (see for example Aden Jefferies which was turned into a protected redirect so they recreated at Aden Jefferies (Home and Away) (now deleted), and Annie Campbell, protected redirect forked at Annie Campbell (fictional character) and I see we've now also got 'forks of forks' with Tony_Holden_(fictional_character) also at Tony Holden (Home and Away character) - this stuff really needs to be cleaned out). I have suggested several times to the people who keep restoring the storyline junk that if they find it useful information and they want to create a database of Home and Away content, they should take these articles and create their own fansite, even a Home and Away wiki like Lostpedia as the material has been released under the GFDL so they can do whatever they want with it as long as they credit where it came from, but |NOT everything belongs on Wikipedia and this is jsut not suitable for an encyclopedia and doesn't conform to our policies and guidelines. Beyond the very short stubs that Orderinchaos and I chopped a few of these down to, I don't think there's really a possibility of writing proper maintainable articles about these characters in way that would conform to policy and so I would really like us to have a clean up and delete all these articles and protect from recreation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: as disruptive mass nomination (the community cannot reasonably be expected to adequately review scores of these in a mere week and based on comments above, it is clear that accounts are indeed just looking at some without considering each one, which is problematic because they vary considerably on terms of quality from one to the next; and also disruptive because of the various bad faith accusations in the discussion above).  Moreover, various of the so-called delete claims above either reflect not looking at the articles or are flatout just dishonest.  Let us first take the titular article.  Well, its contents are certainly |verifiable, as I was able to confirm out of universe information from a Google News source, which I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugo_Austin&diff=300831789&oldid=300127556 added to the article, which means the article contains some non-plot information and thus meets the heavily disputed and thus consensus lacking #PLOT, because they are not actually only "plot".  The fact that they contain out of universe information verifiable through reliable sources also means that they meet the  (as there are millions of fictional characters that get no Google News results, whereas these ones do) and at least one of the many versions of the proposed , which changes constantly anyway.  So, at a minimum the articles do meet , and because we know they are not hoaxes, nor libelous, then even at worst, they would be merged and redirected per  and .  Now whether the individual articles should remain or if they should me merged or redirect is for the individual talk pages.  Deletion is clearly and overwhelmingly a bad call that no one seriously supports, and again, the notability and verifiability varies per character.  Tony Holden and the actor who played as him as a search string gets http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Tony+Holden%22+%22Jon+Sivewright%22&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a six Google News hits, some others get more, others less.  It would take a post equal to this entire discussion thus far and then some to adequately go through every single one of the items listed above.  Finally, Wikipedia does not have a deadline.  There is no pressing, dire need to hurry up and get rid of these now when other options like sourcing (as I have begun to do to Hugo Austin and the second item on the list, etc.--the sources are out there!), or merging and redirecting are on the table.  Sincerely
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOT||WP:GNG||WP:FICT||WP:V||WP:BEFORE||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: It may be a lot of work, but I do believe that the ''Group'' is notable (notice small caps) to List of Home and Away characters. Mass AFD is not the route to go here. I find myself comparing this to the way Baywatch Articles are setup, it could be done much better, but thats an edit issue. Stubs & list entries dont yet rate stand alone Articles, they provide a method of navigation to the actors (whom may/may not be independantly otable (notice large caps
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Oh, it would have been easier to say keep a, b, c, d, and delete, e, f, g, h, i, j, k.... but a huge mass nomination does not really allow editors the luxury of time to go through them one by one by one by one by one (etc) to make an individual determination for each to see which might be salvagable per  and  and , and which might not... or even if one or two actually do have the required sourcing and should not have been nominated.  By placing all the eggs in one basket, the nom allows either a keep all or delete all.  With such a practice, whether perceived as disruptive or not, even even one gets deleted that should not have been, all of Wikipedia is diminished
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:PRESERVE||WP:POTENTIAL)

Comment: Since no one else had left the good faith heads-ups on the talk pages of the creators of these articles I started doing so.  I know the opinion has been expressed above that this was unnecessary.  If I have understood the xplanation as to ''why'' the good faith heads-ups are not necessary, it is because those concerned about these articles had already tried patiently explaining what was wrong with these articles, and had exhausted their ability to |assume good faith
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: I too find it extremely disturbing that the nominator chose not to inform the article creators as the deletion policies recommend.  If our nominator has an explanation as to why they chose to ignore the deletion policies' recommendations I hope they will share that.  When I find an article I started has been deleted -- and the nominator chose not to inform me, I am pretty mad.  In the five years I have been contributing to the wikipedia I have seen, time and again, promising new contributors, who end up going rogue, and being banned, and I think the watershed event is a more experienced contributor's lapse from .  Alternatively other newbies are just driven away when more experienced contributor's lapses from 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE||WP:BITE)