Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storylines of EastEnders (2000s)


 * 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. Will mark for cleanup. The only argument that saves this article is that the article wasn't given a chance to improve. If it doesn't improve, that argument won't work next time. Mango juice talk 17:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Storylines of EastEnders (2000s)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Violates WP:NOT by being just a plot summary by year. Clarityfiend 23:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 01:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 01:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 03:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Oh good lord, plot summary for a soap? Delete per WP:NOT and WP:A (I don't see a single source on this). --Phirazo 03:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gungadin's comment (below) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep--Gungadin 12:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to the two previous respondents. This is not a vote system. You actually have to provide a reasoned rationale for why you think it should be kept. Look at the aforementioned guidelines and you will see why it should be deleted.  Adrian  M. H.  15:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the article could be improved, but I think it should be rewritten to just include the notable storylines from the decade and the real world impact that each storyline has, as well as changes in the shows format, popularity, criticisms etc - similar to the way Coronation street history has been written. Again this nomination could have been avoided if issues were discussed beforehand. It would have given editors the chance to make the changes first. --Gungadin 15:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Now is your opportunity. Show us this article can be more than a plot summary. --Phirazo 03:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gungadin. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 15:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This clearly violates WP:NOT, and I do hope that the closing admin will be able to see past unjustified keep votes to eliminate this page. Indrian 08:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Gungadin. 84.9.61.204
 * Delete per the very clear point made in #7 at WP:IINFO -- "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic."  If the content had to be forked from elsewhere and stand here without any real-world context to back it (and its immense length), then it's obviously not being presented as an aspect of a larger topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Plots are encyclopaedic, clearly policy is broken in this case. WP:NOT Matthew 21:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - you link to WP:NOT quite often in AFDs in which you participate. I think I've asked you this before, but don't recall ever getting an answer. Can you point out to me exactly where in that section of the policy it says that it's OK to violate other parts of the policy because Wikipedia isn't printed on paper? Because I'm not seeing it. Otto4711 22:31, 14 June 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.