Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean


 * 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. JForget 22:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. An article on two characters from a soap opera, who both appear to have their own separate articles anyway (John Paul McQueen, Craig Dean). The article appears to be excessive plot summary (WP:NOTPLOT) and, due to the unsourced mention of internet forums in the lead, I smell fanboy-ism (WP:FANCRUFT). However, the section on reception shows some notability (WP:N) as the show won a Stonewall Award due to these characters, but that does not justify the need for this duplicate article and the rest of that section appears to be trivial (WP:TRIVIA) quotes from the cast. DJ 10:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also nominated a range of "supercouple" articles for deletion at Articles for deletion/Soap Opera "supercouples". DJ 09:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

*I agree Delete. It may be a "major storyline" but it all the information is on Craig and John Paul's pages. I removed the timeline not long ago because it was far too long but still the page isn't relevant.  Who niverse 93  talk?  10:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. We both agreed to remove the timeline because it was in-universe. The rest of the article, disregarding the plot summary, however, is not. The article is certainly relevant. Flyer22 (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have taken time to rethink my first answer and I've decided to back the article, so yeah keep!  Who niverse 93  talk?  14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice for recreation if written with real-world context (reception, production, etc.). As it stands, this is only excessive plot detail. The JPS talk to me  12:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC) This actually does now have some decent real-world context, that I must have missed on first viewing. Much better than some of the other crap that exists on here. Sorry for my original vote.  The JPS talk to me  17:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article is written with real-world context. The only thing that is not is the plot summary, which is typical (as is with film articles). Flyer22 (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many other popular soap couples have their own articles as well. --Silvestris (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. DJ 06:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the nominator must have been looking at a different article, this certainly isn't just a plot summary. Jeni  ( talk ) 13:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is clearly established within the article; the nominator even points this out. The article is not excessive plot summary, is not fanboy-ism, WP:FANCRUFT, or WP:TRIVIA. Nor is most of this stuff in either of their individual articles. Their individual articles are what are mostly plot. Flyer22 (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep seems well referenced notability appears to be established. AniMate   draw  20:50, 2 August 2009 (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.