Deletion of Janet Dillon

Comment: no argument or rationale for deletion offered.  If there is "too much plot," then trim it or add more real world context to balance it.  The same with in-universe perspective: .  Either this should be kept as a standalone article (which the references might support) or it should be merged to a character list.  In either case, deletion is not the proper outcome, and this AFD should not have been started per .  The nom's comments about soap opera article editors are inappropriate; one might more easily comment on the conduct and intent of an editor who has done nothing recently but mass-nominate soap opera-related articles for deletion without any attempt at correcting problems by editing or merging, etc., through normal editing and discussion, which tends towards disruption in that it is contrary to both deletion and editing policy, and the disparaging comments about the subject and its editors unfortunately suggest bad faith on his part.  Unsupported comments such as "The current sources may not be the right ones to choose" and "I don't know if the article violates copyrights" further tell us that the nom is assuming the worst but not doing any work to investigate or verify
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:SOFIXIT||WP:ATD)

Comment: I do not believe that the cited sources within the article are evidence of significant coverage per |the general notability guideline as they are short mentions that do not show reception or significance to suppose that the article can be more than |a plot-only description of a fictional work. Having said that, they may be an indicator that the character might be notable, but with the current evidence I remain unconvinced of that and I believe that merging the content to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters until the sources fully support a stand-alone article is the more appropriate alternative
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PLOT)