Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional businesses in Coronation Street


 * 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. Consensus seems fairly clear. I note Mandsford's argument, and it's true, we do allow for original research in articles on fictional works, but this is usually limited to plot summaries (having said that, I managed to write an article with a referenced plot section, but that's rather difficult). Ironholds (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

List of fictional businesses in Coronation Street

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not encyclopedic, no out of universe content or reliable references, and not particularly notable to non-fans of Coronation Street. Ooh, Fruity  @  Ooh, Chatty  16:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR Someone65 (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It can't be OR because all the information has been broadcast widely. Nothing original there. Coronation Street is a British national institution. Millions of people have been watching it for decades (I know, it's a sad world, but it is what it is).  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 19:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article just needs work in accordance with our editing policy as it does not yet include Gamma Garments, for example. Note that some of the institutions actually exist and you may, for example, drink beer in the Rover's Return - see Thinking northern. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Could some of the content not be incorporated into Weatherfield rather than having it's own article? Most of these fictional locations are not notable, even in-universe. The only ones you could possibly have more than a couple of sentences about are the Rovers Return Inn, which has it's own article anyway, the Corner Shop and The Kabin. The rest is just fancruft. All plot, no content - more at home on a fan site like [Corriepedia]. Ooh, Fruity   @  Ooh, Chatty  13:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It's no secret that entertainment and sports articles are held to a much lower standard than those of a more cerebral nature. Although Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, the reality is that it is a non-profit business that relies upon the continued participation of contributors.  In more recent years, we have, thank heaven, cut back on pages about individual TV episodes and obscure TV characters and struck a better balance between reality and fiction but I don't have a problem with this one.  Original research in a TV article rather than extensive footnotes?  That's nothing new. Mandsford 15:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment While this is a very long running and popular show, I suspect the level of detail here is unsustainable. I don't see any reason why this can't be trimmed and merged (with Weatherfield, per Ooh, Fruity, and likely another article or two) into a List of Fictional Locations article. Deleting it entirely, however, seems unproductive. Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The article lacks references independent of the subject from reliable third-party sources and the topic does not meet the general notability guideline or the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. The article is written with an in-universe perspective, it's a plot-only description of a fictional work and an unnecessary content fork. The article doesn't even have reliable sources, not even primary sources. I don't see a valid reason to keep or merge the content in any way. Jfgslo (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable topic. The only entry with adequate real-world notability is the Rovers Return Inn, which exists as an individual article. While limited production details may be available on a few other entries such as The Kabin, this could be covered appropriately in Weatherfield. Frickative  17:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep it This page is updated regualarly, i think we could look for some more sources but apart from that! its just been expanded to include a small write-up about what business were on corrie and the business units sectiona aswell, Please keep it!! OVERALL I THINK THAT THE PAGE PROVIDES INTRESTING INFORMATION AND SHOULD BE KEPT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintyyyy 2010 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * COMMENT Apoliges for not signing last comment was about to re-edited it but there was a conflicting edit! So i do beleive that theres 4 votes to keep, 3 to delete! Mintyyyy 2010 (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Jfgslo said it better than I could. The article is just an excessive listing of plot details with no out-of-universe material that shows how the topic has made an impact in the real world.  Them From  Space  19:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:LC items 1, 6, 8, 10, and 11. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2011 (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.