Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun Hill fire (2002)


 * 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. Though merging all the storylines for this series sounds like a plan. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sun Hill fire (2002)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This The Bill storyline is not sufficiently independently notable to justify its own article. Searches on both Google Books and Google News provide no hits for "Sun Hill fire". Neelix (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. A story arc would have to be analyzed in depth in secondary sources to have its own article. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is very well sourced from the programmes official case book and is notable enough. Police,Mad,Jack ☺ 15:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge this and similar storyline articles (which don't appear to have secondary source coverage) into a List of The Bill storylines. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A lot of plot (WP:NOT) and bits of trivial information, no independent sources in article to demonstrate notability. Also per this edit, it seems that the refs do not actually source what the article claims (I mean the real-world info). If possible, I wouldn't mind seeing this smerged into List of The Bill episodes (series 18), if that is the correct season. – sgeureka t•c 08:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the book before trying to sell that the refs do not actually source what the article claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talk • contribs)
 * Isn't it a huge coincidence that at one moment there is a completely unsourced article, and the next moment a book is used as reference for every single old sentence and/or paragraph, but not even a page number is provided along with it? Reason enough to at least mention that something doesn't seem right. – sgeureka t•c 15:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The suspicion you state is reasonable, however you should assume good faith. You have no evidence that these references have been fabricated in a way to suit me and it is something you suspect or believe to be the case. Police,Mad,Jack ☺ 18:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the referencing so it contains six citations to the one source rather than listing them separately. Themeparkgc   Talk  09:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge. I agree with User:Jclemens - merge all similar articles into a new article List of The Bill storylines. Themeparkgc   Talk  09:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep: Episodes of most popular series get their own page on Wikipedia, why shouldn't this one? Mod MMG  (User Page) Reply on my talkpage.  Do NOT click this link 08:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't get its own page because it isn't notable. Episodes and story archs should only get their own pages when they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, something that this story arch has not. Neelix (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2010 (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.