Darlene Taylor (Hollyoaks): Found nothing with WP:BEFORE except for sources talking about the actress' future works.  Not sure exactly where this could be merged or redirected to, as many list pages from this show should probably also be deleted.  (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 18:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 18:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions .  (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 18:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (2003)#Darlene Taylor .  The character does not have enough SIGCOV for a standalone article.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (2003)#Darlene Taylor due to lack of sources available on the character, as well as lack of real-world information.  – Meena • 18:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing vote to keep following improvements made by Raintheone .  – Meena • 13:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Meena : I mean, the Guardian source and the Digital Spy source are both very short and are literal character bios and plot description respectively.  Metro does not even talk about the character outside of literally two sentences.  All of the other new sources are WP:PRIMARY .  There is still basically no coverage.  (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 15:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to improvements made to the article.  While much more could be done, it's a good start that is enough to show the article is notable.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 02:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (2003)#Darlene Taylor .  I would ideally like to keep this but a merge is more reasonable.  Just wanted to add that the yearly lists should not be deleted.  They are important to soap operas for the information about the character's and plot and context.  Soaps do not have seasons and thus there is not a season/series page for each year like there are for other TV shows, and soaps are long running (Hollyoaks has been running since 1995, whilst Coronation Street since 1960!) and air 4–6 new episodes a week and thus have a large cast and set of characters that have very long storylines and context.  Some of the earlier Hollyoaks yearly lists are not as sourced as is ideal, but we are working on that.  But if you look at some of the later articles, such as List of Hollyoaks characters (2022) or List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters (2020s) , you can see that every character that has a section is sourced and has real life information (reception, development, casting, quotes etc).  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 05:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do have to say this is rather unusual for television show casts.  Look at, say List of Millennium characters , it quickly covers the character's presence in each season and then goes more into detail about the main and reoccurring characters.  Minor characters are simply excluded, unless they are the subject of significant coverage or controversy.  I think you can merge each yearly list into a decade list ( List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters (2020s) is not a bad example here).  Also, most of the sources on List of Hollyoaks characters (2022) are WP:PRIMARY and many of the others come from the same source ( Digital Spy ) which is discouraged.  (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 13:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] UPDATE:Strong keep due to the improvements on the page which show development and casting information and demonstrate clear notability.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 17:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - an article with real-world information and sources.  No reason to delete this article.  Soaper1234 - talk 20:04, 17 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.

Discussion outcome: keep