Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterloo Road Comprehensive


 * 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. Some of the keep "votes" provide exceedingly weak arguments. Nonetheless, there's no consensus for deletion. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Waterloo Road Comprehensive

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There is nothing at all notable about this fictional building. Completely redundant to Waterloo Road (TV series) and seems to be another excuse to cram even more description about the plot of this show. Everything in this article is about the plot of the show; there is no need for this article at all. And, vitally, it contains absolutely no real-world context. The JPS talk to me  00:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, no third-party sources have been offered to suggest that this article can ever come up to standard. Although the term "Waterloo Road Comprehensive" appears on results, it is used as a synecdoche of the plot, not the building itself. Redundant fork. The JPS talk to me  08:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. First of all, the school itself is not notable by our standards as it hasn't been the subject of more-than-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Furthermore, much of this material is unreferenced, going against our policy on verification.  Going beyond verification, this also appears to be nothing but a synthesis of plot-related material without any actual analysis from a real-world perspective.  Wikipedia isn't a place to write plot summaries about minor and nonnotable elements of fiction.  Them  From  Space  00:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * keep under the assumption that some of the many reviews of it have talked about it in a significant way--The plot of the overall show can have many components worthy of separate discussion and this may be one of them . if not, merge, or at least make a redirect. No reason is given why there shouldn't be a merge. The material is certainly verifiable, from the primary source, as appropriate for this content, and is thus neither OR nor SYN--just simple description.. NOT PLOT is a disputed guideline, and in any case there is no consensus for it referring to more than the overall coverage of a fiction in Wikipedia. When in a merged article, it wouldn't apply in any case. RW perspective can be added--this is a question of editing, not deletion. Agreed, the detail is excessive--this again is a question of editing not deletion. And, what is more, the nomination gives   no reason given why it should not be at least a redirect. There's a good explanation for that: there is no possibly valid reason.  Anything anyone might want to look up should have a redirect if there's relevant content in WikipediaDGG (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If reviewers "have talked about it in a significant way", why did the writers of this "article" not feel that their comments worthy of a mention? Rather than rambling on about the plot? Regardless of PLOT being a disputed guideline, let's use common sense! All of this description about this show is excessive -- the parent article; the billions of character articles, and now this? The JPS talk to me  07:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The JPS is just looking for another excuse to get rid of everything and anything to do with Waterloo Road. Despite ALWAYS complaining about every article, he makes no effort himself what-so-ever to improve them. Also, the article is a massive improvment on what it was originally and how can you say it has nothing to do with the building itself???? Look at the article - 2008 Fire, 2009 Demolition, the fact it was facing closure in Series 1, the future of the school etc. I suggest you take a long hard look at those guidelines yourself JPS because its looking very much like double standards. The only aspect of the article that you can really aim some critic at is the way its written, which CAN be changed, despite you saying the articles "have no hope". I repeat KEEP 92.21.58.113 (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's so nice to hear another reasoned argument based upon Wikipedia guidelines. I've been keeping an eye on WR articles and have seen absolutely no improvement over the last few months. The emphasis is still on plot. Minimal references. No real-world context. User:Themfromspace articulated better than I why this is unacceptable. The JPS talk to me  10:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep DGG made a correct assessment. The Waterloo Road Comprehensive has been covered in-depth in real-world context in multiple reliable sources as well as in reviews. That the article has sat and not been improved within some arbitrary time is a reason to fix it through cleanup and sourcing, not deletion.  The fact that the authors have not (yet) done so is also not a reason to delete, as Wikipedia does not demand it be done in some arbitrary time frame.  If the sense is that the article has too much plot, that's yet another reson for cleanup and editing using the ample available sources, not for deletion. This discussion is about this one article, not the series or other series elements. As with all reliable sources, a reader must be able to (in principal) check the source themselves to confirm the profferred text. If a reader can read it, watch it, or see it, we do not always expect to have the little things written up in the newspapers. For some non-contentious facts, the primary source (the series) is occasionally acceptable for some simple WP:V.  However, as stated above... there IS enough to source this article about a notable element that itself has been documented in Reliable Sources.  Per WP:DEL, "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page", and "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."  Per Editing policy offers "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress", and "Preserve information: fix problems if you can, flag them if you can't."  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Michael, those results are misleading. Although the term "Waterloo Road Comprehensive" appears on results, it is used as a synecdoche of the plot. The term, in those results, does not refer to the building itself. The building/institution is not the primary topic of those sources; certainly not significantly different from the parent article. The JPS talk to me  07:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable?? Its only non-notable to you three becuase more than likely you haven't seen WR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.58.113 (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I will find thw time to bring the article up to standards and the sources needed for this and the parent article. Its should't be deleted, it just needs improvement - along with the other WR articles. Trust me, it can be done. Harleyamber (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Although i am to blame for this, as i was the user who rehauled the article from what it originally was, i agree with the other users who have said it should be kept. I see now that i myself need to improve on how to write an article for wikipedia :( and i apologise for this. However, i would be more than happier to aid a re-write on the article so it meets wiki guidelines, although i may need help. Anyone upe for it? (Once again, i apologise for this. I thought it was all correct) Newtree21 (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you envisage as the improvements you can make? We just don't need any source; notability is asserted when the subject is the primary focus of the reference (as opposed to the show). The JPS talk to me  13:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (then redirect if desired) - only sources provided constitute "trivial mentions" not "significant coverage" per WP:GNG (referenced at WP:WAF); the articles are about the work of fiction generally and mention the building only in passing. This does not establish notability outside the fictional universe. Savidan 17:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Eek! Delete non-notable fictional building; JPS and and Savidan are spot on. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looking at the 74 Google hits, the term is used to represent the show but not by any reliable sources. It has no independent life of its own, which is actually unusual for fictional schools. Considering that fictional works that take place in schools will have a name for the school, it would take analyses in reliable sources to justify having a stand-alone article for one. Abductive (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Independent coverage has been established.  D r e a m Focus  20:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Out of the 74 Google hits? Abductive (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do the articles/hits maintain their substance if you reword them by removing the phrase about the school? Yes. The JPS talk to me  06:53, 23 July 2009 (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.