Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hollyoaks characters (1997)


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. View are split between "keep" and "merge". Neither requires deletion, so this particular discussion can be closed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

List of Hollyoaks characters (1997)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

"The following is a list of characters that first appeared in the Channel 4 soap opera Hollyoaks in 1997". This poorly referenced plot summary is some of the most ridiculous listcruft I've seen in a while - and there's over a dozen similar articles in Category:Lists of Hollyoaks characters. It's reasonable we have List of Hollyoaks characters, but no, we don't need to have variations of it "by year of introduction". This fails WP:LISTN badly. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Lists,  and United Kingdom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (1998) and rename to List of Hollyoaks characters (1997–1998). We actually do need to have it by year of introduction, as if you edited soaps, you would know that most of them do not run by series/seasons, but operate in a continuing run, meaning that marking characters by year is the most appropriate way of doing it. I'm not denying that there is a lack of sourcing so I think that merging them and working on the sourcing is the most appropriate avenue, rather than flat out suggesting a removal of information. – Meena • 10:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, one list of characters is reasonable. A dozen, give or take, is not. Why List of Hollyoaks characters (1997–1998)? Why not List of Hollyoaks characters (1997–1999)? Or List of Hollyoaks characters (1997–2007)? We have one list for each year, each and every one poorly sourced and nothing but a plot summary, and that's way too many - by a lot. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  12:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Amending vote to keep - merging to a 1997–1998 is still a good option IMO as it preserves info and collates it but improvements are being made to sourcing as we are working hard in the WP:SOAPS community. Our lists meet WP:LISTN. – Meena • 12:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as the yearly lists are really important to soap operas. As Meena has said above, soap operas do not have seasons and thus the yearly lists are important as it provides a bit more of an overview of that soap's year. Soap operas have so many characters that it would not be possible at all to fit them all into one page, especially the more recent pages (e.g. post 2000) where there are loads more characters due to an increase in episode counts. I also disagree that the page is completely unsourced. Yes, there are a lack of sources but that can be improved. I have now added a source to Dennis' section and Jill has her casting and a bit of reception both sourced. The other information are storylines (which per WP:SOAPS do not need to sourced) or on the individual character pages. There is also another source on the talk page which I will add later on (as I am currently abroad right now and cannot do much). I would not oppose merging this with the 1998 list (or even the 1995–1996 list) but it cannot be merged with too many as otherwise would be way too long and cause size and issues accessibility issues (see WP:Wikipedia is not paper and WP:Article size which warns against pages being too big as it can cause loading and download issues). Also, I disagree strongly that the character yearly lists are fancruft as most – especially the more recent ones – include casting, development, reception and more real world information. Years ago, there was a discussion as Soap Operas (e.g. EastEnders) would have "List of Minor X 1997 characters (X year)" in the articles, but as it is difficult to distinguish between minor and non minor (especially as several characters in the lists were not minor at all) and several other factors they decided to stick to the yearly pages to make them complete and comprehensive. The Soaps community have worked extremely hard in sourcing all of the yearly articles and making them as relevant to the real world as possible and this article with less sources should not mean that all other articles suffer because of it. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:IMPORTANT does not trump NLIST/GNG. And the fact that some similar articles are well soruced does not help here, per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If nobody fixes this during this discussion, it will likely be deleted. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the fact that you said above that "each and every one poorly sourced", when if you look at some of the other ones that is clearly not the case when the sourcing is much more extensive. The sourcing here can be improved but it is not completely unsourced, and I am currently trying to improve it further. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sourcing (meeting WP:V) is good, but articles need to meet WP:GNG/WP:NLIST too. Are there any reliable lists out there that present lists of Holloyaks characters in a year by year format? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per arguments provided by other editors. From what I've gathered about Hollyoaks in the various discussions here, these lists do genuinely seem like they are valuable to the discussion of the series. However, I do feel that this is more of an issue in terms of cleanup and a need for improved sourcing states more than it is a need for a deletion discussion. I feel that if the notability of these groups of characters cannot be proved, that's when a discussion should take place, but even then, that is something for a merge discussion, not for an AfD. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. Articles for deletion/List of former Hollyoaks characters was closed as a merge. Since we are at almost a week here with very few comments, I'll ping all participants of that related discussion who have not commented here yet: . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. A list of Hollyoaks characters is notable therefore there is no reason to delete this. Merging it with List of Hollyoaks characters is not reasonable since there are 29 years of characters and that will continue to increase as the show continues. A single list of every character with details is not reasonable given the length, so it is reasonable to divide it into multiple lists. These more detailed character lists for the British and Australian soap operas came about because many years ago certain editors were in the habit of creating individual articles for nearly every character that had appeared, and these lists were then the result of many merges. A character would have their own section in one of these lists where some real-world information is available. I think this is a bad faith AFD and should be closed as such. AFD is not the correct place to propose merging articles. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  10:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am fine with this WP:FANCRUFT getting deleted too, don't worry. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A list of characters in Hollyoaks meets NLIST. AFD is not for discussing what is included and excluded in such lists. Bad faith nomination. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  11:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We are not discussing a list of character in Hollyoaks, but an artificial and arbitrary 1997-only split of it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Meena's suggestion. Doesn't seem like we need a separate article for every year, and doing it by twos isn't much better (doing it by decade would be best), but it would be a good start. DrowssapSMM (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge by decade - I think List of Hollyoaks characters (1990s) makes way more sense than by year. Especially when other soap operas like The Bold and the Beautiful do the same thing. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason is that The Bold and the Beautiful has a much lower cast turnover than Hollyoaks (American soaps in general prefer to recast characters and keep them longer running rather than introducing new characters). In 2010, 46 regular or major recurring characters were introduced alone. Merging them by decade would only mean that some of the later lists would have 300+ characters and this is in no way manageable or accessable, especially with the amount of storylines, development and reception that soap opera characters get. Another soap opera uses the decades lists and it got tagged for being too long and a split was suggested. In 1997, Hollyoaks aired only 2 episodes a week and now they air 5, so the cast has expanded singificantly and that is why there are more characters. Merging by decade would not work for Hollyoaks or other British soaps as it would make the lists way too long. It is a case by case basis - I recently merged 6 articles together to form a decades list as that was relatively short, and this article would fit well with the 1998 article as they are both relatively shorter than the newer ones. Also, just wanted to note that soap operas do not have episode lists or season breakdowns like other TV shows, and the yearly lists support in showing what happened in the show that year (which will have 300+ episodes) in addition to sourced development, reception and casting. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed with DaniloDaysOfOurLives here. A decades list may work for the first decade since the cast turnover and episode output was low, but it would be illogical and inappropriate to merge every decade since the lists would become too long to navigate comfortably. Oinkers42, if you know little about soaps, have the courtesy of doing some basic research before suggesting such a huge and risible decision. – Meena • 15:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Haven't researched in depth, but my understanding of soaps is that "new characters introduced at X time" is pretty standard secondary coverage across the genre, so I am guessing this meets NLIST via contemporaneous coverage. I would support editorial decisions to improve the state of things for our readers with merging and editing, but I don't necessarily see a reason for AfD to enforce such. &mdash;siro&chi;o 17:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not too familiar with Hollyoaks, but I'd suggest Keeping for the time being. I think a proper discussion at WP:SOAPS should be held about the content of the articles. (I.e: Which of these characters are notable, is merging feasible, are there sources that justify the lists, etc) I'd assume those at SOAPS would know more about the best way to do this information, and about whether attempts at mergers are viable or not, especially given that these lists are prevalent among a variety of series. Sourcing needs to be improved, not outright erased, before anything should be done.
 * I also believe that opening several separate merge discussions for these lists was an unwise idea, and should have been discussed on SOAPS' talk page first. It splits up the discussion among numerous pages and makes actually tackling the problem inconvenient for all editors involved. I do agree that some further reassessment of some of these articles is warranted, but just bulk starting a bunch of discussions and debates is making the problem more difficult to handle. Pokelego999 (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - There is a collective discussion ongoing with the aim of improving articles. The list needs work and real world information needs to be added now. It has generally been accepted that lists of characters by year are a good destination to include characters such as those in the list. We can work on this list now.Rain</b> <b style="color:green">the 1</b> 09:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge as Meena suggests. This doesn't need an article of its own. Merging to List of Hollyoaks characters (1997–1998) would keep the information better organized. WonderCanada (talk)
 * Keep - There is clearly work going into all these articles to improve them. It would be much better to look at working on these articles rather than just deleting them. Like has mentioned, it would be a better idea to have had this discussion in once place, rather than have multiple discussions popping up everywhere. Due to the format of a soap opera, it is difficult to merge the lists into a single list of characters or even one for a decade. There is absolutely scope for these earlier lists, such as 1997, to become as well developed and sourced as the later lists, such as List of Hollyoaks characters (2019), and the efforts to achieve this are underway. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> -  talk  19:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I would have thought that this would be obvious to experienced editors but an article can not be Merged to a page that does not exist. So please do not propose red link articles as a Merge target unless you are willing to quickly create a suitable Redirect target yourself. Mentioning nonexistent articles as Merge targets perhaps assuming someone else will create these articles for you will not be happening. So, if you want your comments to be taken seriously by a discussion closer, do not ask for the impossible. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 05:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Taking Liz's note into account, it seems a single existing merge target as consensus is unlikely (though some have agreed in principle with Meena's suggestion). I think the decision of how to organize these articles is probably best left to editorial decisions as suggested by Pokelego999. &mdash;siro&chi;o 07:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that merge discussions are dominated by editors from SOAPS who pile on saying "all is fine, leave our lists alone". See any of the merger discussions at pages listed at Category:Lists of former characters. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * PS. I started those merge discussions in good will shortly after starting Articles for deletion/List of former Hollyoaks characters. The problem we now have is that the AfD discussion was 'merge', due to the input of non-SOAP editors, whereas the merge discussions seem frequented only by SOAP-affiliated editors are are very much 'don't merge'. I am at a loss what to do next to achieve consistency yet avoid FORUMSHOPPING. @Liz - any thoughts for best practices? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll also @Vanamonde93 who closed that AfD - what do you recommend I should do after the merge discussions there end up in very likely 'don't merge'? (To be clear, this issue is semi-related to this AfD, particularly in the context of Articles for deletion/List of Neighbours characters, also closed by Vanamonde, that ended up in non very well enforced, clearly, "Merge into single article".). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To be completely fair to the SOAPS editors, you've given them practically no time at all to improve articles. They're likely to hit keep so they can actually have time to work on these articles and improve them. You've basically imposed a time limit on their efforts to improve these articles, which is detrimental overall to the project. This is why I say a discussion in SOAPS should have been started first. Time would have been given to openly discussing the improvement of these articles, and deletion should only have been discussed if it could be proven that these articles were impossible to improve. Judging by the current ongoing efforts of WikiProject SOAPS, sources seem to exist out there, and a discussion about this beforehand likely would have allowed for this to come about with the need to panic about things getting deleted faster than they could be improved. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't think of good options here, unfortunately. AfD does tend to get more outside input, so if you're dealing with lists that are entirely redundant (I don't know if that's the case here) you could bring them to AfD instead. Alternatively, you could attempt a single more widely advertised merge discussion for multiple articles. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus, I'm writing this out of respect for you and the process you've demonstrated over time. If you're worried about forum shopping and starting to accuse other active editors of piling on, maybe that's a sign you've made an honest, good faith mistake here and it might be time to step away from this topic.
 * Given your general thoughtful approach to AfDs, I am assuming you are less familiar with this specific subject matter. Soap operas, especially at their very apex in the 1990s and 2000s have a lot dead tree coverage. Within this coverage there is a substantial amount useful secondary analysis and coverage. If you read a couple issues of a soap magazine, you'll have a better understanding of the type of coverage I'm talking about. (In America a good example is Soap Opera Digest, I think Inside Soap is a rough equivalent for the UK.) The content issues you may be unearthing here may be one of Wikipedia simply not having enough editors working on soaps. But there is no need to rush, and editors have the choice not to prioritize the topics that you think are most important.
 * Now, for this annual type list we're discussing here, from a strict policy perspective nearly any time-based delineation of new characters, down to the week would very likely qualify for NLIST. For any year, there is even more coverage in annual reviews. Any year-based delineation of character introductions, for any major soap opera very likely qualifies for NLIST. While I'm not strictly opposed to taking advantage for cleanup, AfD is not an ideal place to make editorial decisions, so I think it's clear that absent a broad consensus to merge, we should leave this in the hands of editors who are interested in working on the relevant articles.
 * As for the other "former/current" discussions, based on my limited knowledge the current/former split seems a little less common as it's much more common to discuss arrivals/departures/returns than strictly former characters, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the "former" lists meet NLIST as well, given the amount of coverage out there. I don't think it's necessary to attempt so many merge discussions across so many different talk pages all at once. In these cases, it's always helpful to remember that perfection is not required.
 * I truly hope this perspective helps. &mdash;siro&chi;o 17:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Siroxo I did read your message, but TL;DR, one list of characters is preferctly good for pretty much any work of fiction. Certainly a dozen+ is way too much, by common sense. Information on which year a character debuted it (or retired from the show) can be included in the general lists, which could even be sortable. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This idea of "Every piece of fiction should only have one list" sounds good on paper, but in practice some franchises work best split up. (As an example, the various by Generation lists of Pokemon, which, while in need of improvement seperately, is regardless unfeasible as one list.) Is Hollyoaks, among other Soaps, one of these franchises? It depends on if the articles can be filled with reliable sources, which SOAPS is working to achieve. If SOAPS can succeed in sourcing it, your "common sense" argument is a moot point.
 * In any case, while merge discussions are a possibility for articles like these, the more pressing concern being put upon SOAPS right now is preventing this information from outright being lost or erased without their input. These discussions have put pressure on the wrong places in the Project. Yes, merge discussions are a good idea. But held under the threat of deletion without any attempts at improvement first? That's just not the way things should be handled, and it puts stress on SOAPS editors.  Pokelego999 (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The lenght of an article makes sense except 99% of what we have in those articles are plot summaries, and those are generally not encyclopedic content per MOS:PLOTLENGTH. WP:SOFTDELETION preserves content to be resued at such a time editors want to do so, while preventing plot-summary only (or primarily), non-encyclopedic content from violating WP:GNG. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Deletion should not be based on the current state of the article, but rather the availability of sources. To prove the existence of sources, it's better that the editors aren't feeling forced to work towards saving seven+ articles from being removed from the site before they can do anything about it. Pokelego999 (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Softdeletion (redirecting with preserving history) is not removal from the site, just temporary blanking of articles not meeting our minimum criteria, with no prejudice to them being restored later. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - as Siroxo. Ingratis (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.