Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Residences and businesses in Emmerdale


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Residences and businesses in Emmerdale

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete: This article suffers from a number of problems. Most egregious is the complete absence of any citations for any of the material in this article. There's more than 100kb of text here, more than 18,000 words. Not one single element of it is referenced. This fails our Notability and Verifiability standards. Another serious failing is the article being written in an in-universe style, which violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

I attempted to get a response from interested parties to fix these serious problems. In March of this year, I posted to the article's talk page noting the serious problems. I also tagged the article with in-universe, Fictionrefs and refimprove. I also posted to the Emmerdale project in an attempt to get some attention to the article. All were ignored for four months, with the silence being broken on the article talk page by an IP who wanted to do a rewrite, but didn't know how.

In late July, I noted that more than 100 edits had been made to the article since I posted the various threads and warnings, with >1000 words being added to the article. Nothing was done to address the issues; in fact it was worse. I examined edits to the article this year, and identified non-IP editors who had made >1 edit to the article, and sent a message to the talk page of each of those contributors (example). They were Solidsandie, JMRH6, Nyttend, Benny1982, Beckindale, Tassedethe, and Matt162009, a total of 7 editors. Since then, there's been 36 edits, again with none of them addressing the serious issues plaguing the article, while adding another ~600 words to it.

The only substantiative attempt to address the concerns was by Nocrowx, who edited to remove two warning tags and add two sentences trying to explain why it is ok for it to be written in-universe style and with excessive trivia. I explained the serious issues and restored the refimprove tag, though the Fictionrefs certainly still applies. Nocrowx has returned to editing and ignored the issue.

At this point, the article has serious problems that none of the interested parties or the Emmerdale project itself seem at all interested in addressing. I've made every attempt to spark interest in fixing the serious problems to no avail. As is, it is nothing more than a fan page accumulation of fiction-cruft, with no encyclopedic treatment whatsoever. I see no hope for the article being improved to meet Wikipedia's standards. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete A list of non-notable in-world places that fail the real world notability test(s).  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Got to agree with Hammersoft and Lugnuts here. There appears to have been no effort to add sources or real world information to the article and it just looks like one big pile of WP:FANCRUFT. - JuneGloom    Talk  20:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is a mass of in-universe information. No effort has been made to source this article. It reads like a fansite too, it just isn't needed really. The general reader would not be interested. Rain the One  BAM 22:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete- I agree with Hammersoft's well-researched nomination. This article fails basic notability and verifiability requirements, and amounts to an indiscriminate accumulation of fancruft. Reyk  YO!  19:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Even by my rather inclusive standards for this sort of article, this is too detailed & indiscriminate for Wikipedia.    DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 24 August 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.