Helen Cunningham: Very poorly referenced plot summary that fails WP:GNG .  No reception, just said plot summary in 'storylines' seciton, then a few remarks by actors from the show about that character in 'development' section that mostly deal not with the character but with relationships between actors in the show.  Current sources are two media articles that mention the character in passing (failing WP:SIGCOV ) and my BEFORE yielded nothing better.  Per WP:SOFTDELETE , we can consider redirecting to the List of Hollyoaks characters .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Fictional elements , Television ,  and United Kingdom .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  WP:BEFORE shows only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs , and this article doesn't pass the threshold for WP:SIGCOV .  Would also support a redirect per WP:ATD .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 13:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep has SIGCOV in sources such as here and here .  – Meena • 12:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are low quality plot summaries.  Where's the analysis?  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the development and reception section shows notability and the sources show SIGCOV.  The development is not plot, it talks about the development of the character and the actor's views of the storylines and characters, which is significant.  Additionally, the storyline section does not need to source per the storyline guidelines at WP:SOAPS .  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 15:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WikiProject does not get to overrule community consensus such as WP:V .  Unreferenced plot summaries can be removed.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per MOS:PLOTSOURCE , plots and storyline sections do not need to be sourced.  We can help source it but this is currently not an issue.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 15:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing my vote to Strong keep due to the amount of sources added that demonstrate clear notability and SIGCOV through sources covering the character in depth.  The development section is now really detailed and extensive (and fully sourced of course) and show the real life information relating to the character.  The reception has also been improved and further illustrates the notability.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 23:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Helen and all the recent AFDs concerning Hollyoaks characters, were regular characters on television around five times a week.  The show was broadcast in multiple countries when Helen was featured.  The show had more than 3M viewers when Helen was featured.  This is likely to generate sources, but linkrot and the character not being on-screen for nearly 20 years makes it difficult because you have to go back and find the sources.  Helen and the other articles just need a little work, researching and sources adding.  I feel obliged to keep adding sources rather than enjoy working on the project.  Rain the 1 20:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to List of Hollyoaks characters (1997)#Helen Cunningham .  It's hard to decide the notability of fictional elements, especially for a character who appeared in a soap opera.  Through a normal Google search I only found articles about the show itself or some WP:CRUFTy trivia or plot summary, and Google Scholar gives limited results.  Perhaps someone with access to reliable British newspapers can help find sources that talk about the character in a way that SIGCOV is met, but for now, I'm towards redirecting the article until sources are found to restore it.  If sources are found, please let us know here.  Spinixster (chat!) 14:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Those advocating Keep need to demonstrate SIGCOV, not mere passing mentions.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – the sources Added by Meena, Raintheone and JuneGloom07 show clear SIGCOV.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 19:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC) Pinging @ Spinixster : as you asked to be pinged if sources were added.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 19:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I cannot access the offline sources, however, the sources that are on the article right now does not prove notability to the character.  The first Free Library source is an interview and only briefly mentions Helen.  Same with the second Free Library source.  Digital Spy source only briefly mentions about how the show pays tribute to the character in an episode.  Fourth Free Library source only briefly mentions that Mr. C and Helen died in a car crash.  Book source would technically be primary because it is co-written by the show's creator and it's a companion book.  I cannot access this source, however, but I just want to make it clear.  Do note that SIGCOV means addresses the topic directly and in detail , and no sources listed here so far address the character directly and in detail.  WP:FICT also says Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details.  Spinixster (chat!) 01:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am referring to the offline one (as in that's why I said the ones that have been added...), as they discuss the character in depth.  I know you cannot access them, but showing good faith for them would be appreciated as this character was popular and on air back when the internet was not used as much, so the sources relating to her are mainly offline.  Also, those sources do discuss the character in detail regarding the real life context, which I specifically wrote about in my comments above.  I would like to ping @ Raintheone : as they can tell you more about the sources that show SIGCOV.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 05:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Offline materials can be scared and shared, on file sharing platforms for example.  This may fall under fair use if it is just for the purpose of this discussion, and sharing is set to private (just for folks with the link).  If I see SIGCOV myself I would even withdraw the nomination myself.  Please ping me if any materials are shared with me. I could also accept them by email.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 23:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Raintheone : , are you able to do this?  No worries if not, but I wanted to ping you DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 01:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: One more try… Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  10:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (1997) per User:Spinixster.  I think if there is not enough material for the article to pass SIGCOV guidelines and standalone, then merging the sourced content to the list is the best course of action.  And this is probably not the best place, but I wish these articles weren't taken straight to AfD.  It's like all the other steps to resolve the state of the article is skipped over.  There never seems to be a real attempt to search for sources, or hold a discussion about it with either the original creator (if possible) or WP:SOAPS editors.  The PROD process also seems to get forgotten about, but might encourage editors to work on the article more than an AfD.  I don't know... - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Kinda leaning towards keep because of the work put in by User:Raintheone.  I think it passes WP:GNG.  - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update - Can everyone who has taken part in the discussion so far please revisit this.  Compare the article to the day it was nominated ( [1] ) to now ( [2] )?  I have tried to improve the article since it was my responsibility wanting it to be kept.  I understand there are primary sources such as the show's official website, used to include information about Helen's characterisation.  There are offline/AGF sources that meet SIGCOV discussing her storylines, including interviews with cast members.  I have added reception which mention opinion about Helen.  Sorry I delayed any significant improvement until today - I had hoped someone else would have taken this one on.  Rain the 1 19:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have noticed a request above for an upload of the offline sources.  I have uploaded photographs here .  They are on a 24 expiry link since the articles are copyrighted.  Pinging as requested, @ Piotrus : .  Pinging others involved who have mentioned the issue during this AFD: @ Spinixster : @ Meena : @ Liz : @ Shooterwalker : @ JuneGloom07 : @ DaniloDaysOfOurLives : - Thank you.  Rain the 1 20:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks.  I revieweed the first four.  There are just plot summaries, and I am not even sure they all mention her.  The most substantial number 3 also contains some thoughts on another actor on the actress playing Helen.  I am not seeing how this is relevant or meets SIGCOV.  PS.  I've reviwed the Reception section added ot the article, and I fear this is the usual case of "cobbled from passing mentions" that for example is routinly not enough to save game or animation characters.  That said, I fully support merging that section to a relevant list.  Plot summary loss is inconsequential (that what fandom is for), but even a cobbled reception like this has encyclopedic value and fandom does not care for this stuff.  However, a stand-alone article IMHO is still not warranted.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are 7 interviews with Hollyoaks cast members about Helen's stories.  They form sections of the development section I have added to explain Helen's development within the show.  The remainder were used in reception besides one.  This was used to cite the claim that Hollyoaks did not publicise Helen's death storyline in advance.  Each source mentions the fictional character Helen/Mrs C which is why they are used as a source.  Helen is a fictional character and the interviewed cast discuss Helen in addition to the actress.  The discussion about the actress is not what has been sourced in the article.  Facts about Kathryn George's portrayal of Helen have been included.  This subject may not be high brow.  It was boring to edit.  This is a Wikipedia article not a fandom article and I improved it for Wikipedia.  AFG was not given in response and a request to upload offline sources was made.  A decision has been returned but not all the sources I provided were checked over.  Do we know make decisions without checking all the facts. .  What good faith exists here. .  Rain the 1 06:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you User:Raintheone for uploading the offline sources.  But what ever happened to AGF?  - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with @ Raintheone : .  I am saddened by the lack of AGF.  I completely understand that editors are busy, but I wish that others could have looked at the other sources and not just the first 4.  I saw the sources and I remember that the first 4 were about Helen's death and her death being revisited in 2017.  First of all, they did all mention her.  Second of all, the ones about the 2017 mentioned her death a lot, thus illustrating the impact of the character – if she was not notable, the magazines would not be reporting about the fictional person behind her death 13 year later.  Same with her affair with Tony (I think that source was the last one) – it was fully in detail about Tony and Helen's affair and the impact the storyline was having on the actors and viewers, and if it was not notable the soap opera magazines would not be doing features and interviews on it.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 21:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  A lot of work has been done on this article since its nomination.  A source analysis of old and new sources would be welcome.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since the source upload page has expired, this is not very likely.  In either case, it would be good to hear from someone who is not a member of the SOAPS as well.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 23:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No problem.  I have created a new link with those offline sources once again - here Rain the 1 18:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep the article has vastly improved since the nomination 5 albert square ( talk ) 06:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep .  There has been plenty of work done with this article.  It contains reliable sources and interviews that are all relevant to the subject matter.  Soaper1234 - talk 20:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I am very puzzled by the comments above stating that the article is well sourced.  I spent an hour looking at all the online sources and as far as I can tell not a single one of them contributes to notability: Source assessment table: Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  https://web.archive.org/web/20031003020329/http://www.hollyoaks.com/backstage.asp? bs=3&aID=7 The source is the show's web site Maybe?  Very brief blurb about the actress; does not discuss Helen.  ✘ No https://web.archive.org/web/20031002154533/http://www.hollyoaks.com/backstage.asp? bs=2&cID=7 The source is the show's web site Maybe?  Brief database entry.  ✘ No https://web.archive.org/web/20021227140411/http://www.hollyoaks.com:80/microsites/default.asp? site=mrc/steamteam The source seems to be usurped?  It's an ad for a dry cleaner.  If there is a connection to the show or character I'm not seeing it.  Unrelated to subject.  ✘ No https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Cunningham#refEvans Source is Wikipedia A circular link to the same Wikipedia article No content.  ✘ No https://www.thefreelibrary.com/SOAP+MUMS%3b+How+screen+mothers+and+daughters+really+get+on+after...-a083638715 Source is Sunday Mail (Glasgow) ?  I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Sunday Mail.  Article is mainly about the actors, one passing mention of Helen.  ✘ No https://www.thefreelibrary.com/1%2c000+and+as+saucy+as+ever%3b+Nick+Foley+on+Hollyoaks'+landmark...-a0100432202 Source is Daily Post (Liverpool).  ?  I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Daily Post.  Short article about an unrelated actor; one passing mention of Helen.  ✘ No https://web.archive.org/web/20030415215840/http://www.hollyoaks.com/article.asp? a=02/04/03 Source is the show's web site.  Maybe?  Article is about a different character; does not mention Helen by name but there's a single passing allusion to her.  ✘ No https://www.thefreelibrary.com/the+Insider%3A+Killed+off+in+fine+style-a0114764046 Source is the Liverpool Echo.  ?  I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Liverpool Echo.  Very short article; does not mention Helen.  ✘ No https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/milo-entwistle-reveals-killed-hollyoaks-11261033 Source is the Daily Mirror.  ~ WP:RSP says no consensus on reliablitly of the Daily Mirror.  Article is about a person who wrote a plot line of the show; passing mentions of Helen.  ✘ No https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/soaps/hollyoaks/hollyoaks-twist-milos-big-secret-revealed-he-killed-the-cunninghams-nathan-morris-reacts/ Source is the Radio Times ?  I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Radio Times Article is about the same writer and plot line as the Daily Mirror source; passing mentions of Helen.  ✘ No https://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/hollyoaks/a839391/hollyoaks-spoilers-nathan-morris-milo-entwistle-road-crash/ Source is Digital Spy.  WP:RSP says Digital Spy is reliable for entertainment.  Article is again about the same writer and plot line as the Daily Mirror source; passing mentions of Helen.  ✘ No https://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/hollyoaks/a30984580/hollyoaks-pays-tribute-gordon-helen-cunningham/ Source is Digital Spy.  WP:RSP says Digital Spy is reliable for entertainment.  ~ Short article about a tribute to Helen.  ~ Partial https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Get+to+C+soap's+only+ghost. -a0113685013 Source is Western Mail (Cardiff) ?  I cannot find discussion of the reliability of the Western Mail Article is about a different character; one passing mention of Helen.  ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Not entirely accurate.  This one is a book source, not Wikipedia itself.  Seems like the so called usurped source has an issue.  If you click "About us" on the link it reveals the content about Helen.  It was the main content when I cited the source.  The sources about the actress are relevant to the character.  The character is not a real person, facts about Kathryn George's portrayal are relevant.  The source about George in which Helen is not mentioned is just used to state she joined the show in 1997.  It was never used for anything else, but to aid the general readers understanding.  The sources are being analysed without the context they are used in the article.  There are also offline sources which I have been good enough to upload.  All I have done is try to improve the article by adding real world information and explaining the fiction better than the plot summary fancruft that was originally served up.  There are 31 citations used but only the lowest value are singled out.  What about the full page interviews with cast I uploaded?  They add some value here.  I guess the issue is this subject is boring and low brow no matter how much you try and improve it.  Rain the 1 02:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No acknowledgement of the offline sources where Helen is mentioned numerous times.  This fictional character is from 1997 and remained on-screen until 2004.  Helen seems to fair better with offline sources.  Perhaps that is because of linkrot and the loss of online content over the past 20-26 years.  I will single out some of the offline sources.  They give Helen the significant coverage asked for in this AFD: Helen mentioned 15 times, full page interview with Kathryn George who plays Helen Helen mentioned twice, article about her car crash storyline, interview with Bernard Latham who plays her on-screen husband Helen mentioned 6 times, 5 as Mandy's mum, 2 as they, Interview with Sarah Dunn about an issue based storyline Helen mentioned 7 times, full page interview with Matt Littler about Helen/Max and crash injuries storyline Helen mentioned 8 times, full page interview with Bernard Latham about Helen Helen mentioned 4 times, cast interview about the character's onscreen funeral Helen mentioned 7 times, interview with Nick Pickard about Helen's story Episode review, Helen mentioned as Mrs C 3 times Reception piece Helen mentioned once, as Mrs C 3 times Rain the 1 08:56, 14 October 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus