This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject EastEnders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the popular BBCsoap operaEastEnders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EastEndersWikipedia:WikiProject EastEndersTemplate:WikiProject EastEndersEastEnders articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
He ought to have his own page. He has his own big storyline and has been in the show for more than a year. Surely Stan should get that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.242.2 (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, there isn't enough real-world information in the article to justify a separate page, but I'm sure there will be enough out there - the work needs to be done first. –anemoneprojectors– 12:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Find the real world info and do it.--86.144.243.230 (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Stan is a notable character, he's the patriarch of the Carter family (or was), he had a big storyline and appeared in the show for over a year. He should have his OWN page.--Cindy's Cafe (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He could do if someone writes a good enough article. But there's no "should". Notability has to be proven, it's not just a matter of opinion. Being a patriarch with a big storyline and in the show for over a year doesn't autimatically qualify a character for their own Wikipedia article. –anemoneprojectors– 21:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think length of time and having a significant storyline does qualify for Stan having his own Wikipedia article. Someone should write it up with all the necessary links etc.--Cindy's Cafe (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If no one is willing to write a draft or expand the list entry, then it probably won't happen. Nothing has been written that wasn't already there when this discussion started, as far as I can see. Length of time and a significant storyline is only enough to write a detailed plot. Articles should not be just plot, so the real-world information needs to be found first. I've also seen a trend of people recently writing articles and including plot details in the development sections, which is wrong. Mick Carter is a good example of how an article should look, or AJ Ahmed, or Nick Cotton. –anemoneprojectors– 08:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone tried giving him his own page. Says on history.--Cindy's Cafe (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the history shows that it was a carbon copy of the list entry, and there was no attempt to show the notability of the character in the real world. –anemoneprojectors– 13:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A dedicated user has now worked hard on the article, so thanks to Soaper1234 for that. AnemoneProjectors 13:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly looks like it does. I ought to have a full read of it, but it definitely looks all there. AnemoneProjectors 23:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
