Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coronation Street sets


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  NNADI GOOD LUCK  ( Talk &#124; Contribs ) 21:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Coronation Street sets

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Aligns with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Information on the set of Coronation Street can and should be included on the main article. WP:NOTEVERYTHING needs a separate article. DarkGlow (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: From the references, it looks like the history and evolution of the sets are of particular interest. There are three books referenced (Coronation Street; A fully illustrated record, Coronation Street: The Inside Story and 40 Years of Coronation Street) with multiple page numbers, indicating that the sets are discussed in detail and not simply mentioned. News articles from the Guardian and BBC News indicate public interest from reliable sources. The four examples given on WP:INDISCRIMINATE -- plot summary, song lyrics, list of statistics and log of software updates -- bear no similarity to this fairly in-depth article with connection to real-world events. Toughpigs (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It can be considered a legitimate WP:SPINOUT for a TV show spanning decades, the sourcing is fine, it's got no problems with WP:INUNIVERSE. This is what I'd want to see in en.wiki's fiction coverage. – sgeureka t•c 09:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, which were convincing enough. Quahog (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.