Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major storylines of 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 No consensus. Avi 16:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Major storylines of Coronation Street

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm not sure this level of detail is relevant to a general enyclopedia. In particular, I'm concerned about who decides what is a major storyline and what's minor. kingboyk 17:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I understand your reasons, but at the moment this article has been created mainly as a place to remove excess content from the Coronation Street article, which was becoming a dumping ground for new information after each episode. Most of the Coronation Street articles are a work-in-progress, since a lot of useless information generally gets added after 'recent' events in each episode.  I am moreorless solely trying to bring articles to a higher standard and to decide what's useful and what is not. I would instead suggest a merge with Most controversial storylines of Coronation Street and Coronation Street timeline. I also agree that definition of what is 'major' is very important, the lead of 'controversial stories' tries to define what is controversial. I don't think that deletion is the way to go, but surely you can understand the time implications which exist in doing such work? Ben 18:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * a dumping ground for new information after each episode &mdash; You are implying that editors are watching a soap opera and then writing never-before-published documentation of it in Wikipedia based upon no sources at all. That's counter to our No original research and Verifiability policies.  Readers should be able to check everything in Wikipedia against sources outside of Wikipedia.  How are you expecting readers to be able to check what happened in the storyline of this soap opera two months ago, let alone in 1983?  Cite sources to show that the storylines of this soap opera have been documented in books or in articles, and you'll have an ready-made answer as to what storylines are major: The soap opera historians who wrote the books and articles will already have decided this, in what they have chosen to document. Uncle G 01:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * UncleG I couldn't agree with you more but surely you realize that this is one of the biggest inconsistencies on wikipedia; if a television show (or series of fantasy novels, or comic book) has enough fans online, "dumping ground" articles appear by the hundreds and its virtually impossible to AfD them all.- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 08:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * UncleG, I am implying that yes. All 'soap' related articles are popping up out of control, sometimes with new articles after each episode. Just look at Hollyoaks and see how much gets added after an episode. I am working singlehandedly (with bits of help here and there) in an attempt to bring Coronation Street articles up to Wikipedia standard. Please look at the Coronation Street main article before I began editing and after I'd done some work. The article was transformed, with information properly sourced via print reference, video reference or the Internet (piror to that there were few citations). I follow WP:FICTION guidelines when I write, ensuring that anything written is based on the programme's achievements, impact and historical significance, not a summary of the plot. I have a wide collection of print & video sources which I have used so far in the main Coronation Street article. I am strongly against masses of soap-based articles being created (especially character articles) and have already had some successful AfDs with a number of Coronation Street stubs being deleted. There seems to be a train of thought among some soap-editors that everything should have an article on Wikipedia regardless of its significance, and I must say that Coronation Street-based articles are not the worst contenders for AfD. I hope that you understand my perspective on this, and I'm sure that you also understand the time implications of such work. Ben 11:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This can't be good. The JPS talk to me  12:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So what's happening then? Everyone seems to have fallen silent. Ben 02:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 21:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether to say keep or merge with another article, but I don't believe it should be deleted. (I'm sure I already made this comment a couple of days ago but it's not here for some reason). &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete define major. Belongs on a fansite. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is delete then I think it only fair that the majority of soap-based articles are nominated for deletion. As I stated earlier, there are many more articles which have less basis such as numerous EastEnders character stubs (some of whom only appeared in a single episode in a minor role), a similar 'major storylines thread' for Emmerdale and a wide collection of individual EastEnders storylines articles. The point I am making with this is that one article should not be singled out if many others exist for other serials. Delete them all or keep and improve them. It's only fair. Ben 13:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. If it has been created to take the weight of the Coronation Street article, presumably some editors have thought this through and may be prepared to clean it up further. I see no problem with keeping this type of material. If it was deleted, so should a lot of the encyclopaedia. Mdcollins1984 00:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Silence again. Ben 12:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment the argument of "if it was deleted, so should a lot of the encyclopaedia" is mentioned in the essay WP:AADD... Addhoc 10:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a lot better than an article for each episode like some other series have. These do look like appropriate plot summaries, not drawn out fancruft considering how long the series is. They form "an aspect of a larger topic". Note that the article had been merged into Storylines of Coronation Street, so the 'major' being subjective argument is void. Now this doesn't mean the article will contain every 'minor' storyline, because they're likely not notable for inclusion. Pomte 05:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - this isn't an encyclopedic article topic, refer to WP:NOT... Addhoc 10:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Under which criterion would you class this as non-encyclopedic, I am assuming this section? I am working on developing the article with sourced analysis of the impacts and historical significance of each storyline as opposed to just a plot summary. This article also forms an important aspect of the larger topic, per WP:FICTION. Ben 12:12, 12 February 2007 (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.