Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of births, marriages and deaths in Neighbours


 * 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 delete from article-space, but also userfy to User:Bookscale/List of births, marriages and deaths in Neighbours per User:Bookscale's request to explore other options. – sgeureka t•c 08:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

List of births, marriages and deaths in Neighbours

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Same as with the other AfDs on the subject, this is a fan article that belongs on a fan wiki. This does not establish notability for the topic as a whole in any way, so this isn't justified in any way. TTN (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ミラP 19:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect. I think I'd prefer it to be redirected to the main article to maintain the history (perhaps to the storyline section?). I made sure that everything is sourced and attempted to make it more encyclopaedic, but I totally accept it is fancrufty and the information is already included in the relevant character articles. - JuneGloom07 Talk  19:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This takes the source material more seriously than it takes itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails LISTN/GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and the recent flood of like-minded nominations. Wikipedia is not the Australian version of Soap Opera Digest. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the above. Yer flamin' galah!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - making that comment (Alf is in Home and Away, not Neighbours!) should be enough to disqualify your !vote - completely unAustralian :-) Bookscale (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and the others like this as well. Absolute fancruft.  (It looks like many more people die than are born, so might the thing die out naturally anyway?)  !Aoziwe (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Bookscale: FANCRUFT - fair enough. I could not find any reliable secondary reference indicating that the collation/synthesis of the BMDs for the programme is in any way notable in its own right, or a likely encyclopedic search term.  At the very very best have them as expand/collapse lists hidden at the bottom of Neighbours (ie merged).  Cheers.  Aoziwe (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Aoziwe. As you will see below, I agree there are issues about notability and suitability for WP. Bookscale (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:FANCRUFT. Belongs on a fansite. Ajf773 (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete—no notability. buidhe 19:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - just a reminder that "fancruft" is not Wikipedia policy, it's an essay that someone wrote. By all means claim a lack of notability for the page, or cite what Wikipedia is not as a reason for deletion, but citing "fancruft" by itself is not a reason to delete an article. Bookscale (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's an interesting list that someone should copy and keep for Wikia or another website (the referencing and sourcing is good), but unfortunately it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Alternatively can it be transwikified to Wikia? Bookscale (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The real question here is whether or not this type of list is suitable for Wikipedia. I think to an extent it would only interest someone tuning into Neighbours and maybe the odd general reader. The list is really well sourced and in comparison to the other four lists, this is well researched and maintained. Acknowledging that this list is related to the television series Neighbours, which has been watched by millions of people worldwide, how can it not meet general notability? Maybe the weddings, births and deaths are worth note and already are already documented in the relevant stand alone articles or lists. Writing it off as not notable or fancruft. It seems like subject snobbery.Rain the 1</b> 20:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep I thought about that too for a while. But just because it is interesting to some people, even very interesting, is it really encyclopedic?  These are not real people of historical value and-or have contributed to science, art, sport, etc.  As indicated above, I would be okay with a merge.  Aoziwe (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree Raintheone - the sourced content can be merged somewhere even if the article itself is not encyclopedic. Is there an editor that the article can be userfied to in order to make sure the sources are all put in a suitable article? Bookscale (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment to closing administrator - it's clear there is a consensus this can't stay as its own article, though I'd be interested in further time for this to stay open to explore potential options about what to do with the sourced material. Bookscale (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - what do we do with the sources, though? Any constructive suggestions on that? Bookscale (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2019 (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.