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

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 keep all. Sandstein 06:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storylines of EastEnders (2000s)[edit]

Delete - article was kept at the first AFD based on the argument that no one had been given the opportunity to perform cleanup and tagged that cleanup was required. In the intervening month there has been no work done on the article. It and its two sister articles remain excessive plot summaries in clear violation of WP:PLOT. Otto4711 14:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extensive plot summaries. I'm not even sure if there's grounds for expansion. Calgary 14:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If userOtto4711 had bothered to discuss this with the contributing editors, or even had a look at the project talk page, then he would have known that a rewrite is already underway. It is in its early stages here. It appears that I am the only one who is actively changing these articles, therefore expecting it to be completed in a month is totally unreasonable.Gungadin 15:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to write the articles over again then there is no need for these articles to exist in the interim. Otto4711 15:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Violation of WP:NOT. You can move these pages to a user subspace while its being rewritten. Corpx 17:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the info on the pages is needed while they are being written, which is already underway. The nominator does not seem to have done his research before nominating. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USERFY-ing it does not lose the information. Corpx 20:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a paragraph summing up an entire year of shows is not an excessive summary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is when the entire article is just about plot summary. Corpx 04:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has to be seen in context of the entire group of articles. putting the plot summary in a separate article is permissible, and I think generally desirable. It is enormously better than having separate articles for the episodes. DGG (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting individual articles for every episode of the series, so implying them is a false dilemma. Decade-long plot summaries were deemed unacceptable for a show with a much longer history than this one and the editors of these articles were placed on notice that the articles had to be improved or deleted. If the editors want to use these articles as a basis for a ground-up rewrite then the articles, as has been noted, can be moved to user space. But as they stand they are a violation of WP:PLOT, which allows for a brief plot summary as an aspect of a larger topic. Three articles that are plot summaries devoid of any context are not brief by any possible stretch of the word. Otto4711 13:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles must be able to stand on their own, and this one does not. This argument only comes down to "better here than there", "other stuff exists", "notability is inherited", and "Wikipedia should be about everything" --Phirazo 18:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and Trampikey Stephenb (Talk) 09:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is little more than a plot summary, and the underlying concept of the article is such that it will always be mostly a plot summary. The userspace draft here is still unreferenced, mostly plot summary, and excessively in-world (it took me a minute to realize Reg Cox wasn't a real person). Also, no one has done easy fixes like, say, removing the red links to Christmas in EastEnders, which took me less than five minutes to fix. --Phirazo 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have reservations about admitting an inability to separate fact from fiction if I were you. It is an incomplete draft. It does not need to be referenced yet as it is in my sandbox. It will be referenced when it is published. It is almost entirely in out of universe perspective. You need to actually research what In-Universe persective is before making such comments. Discussing writers, production, impact, actors, popularity and criticisms is not In Universe perspective. Also, your assertion that the rewrite is "mostly plot summary" contradicts what you said here, where you mention that it includes "creator's intent with certain storylines, popular reaction, behind-the scenes information" (none of which are In-Universe material). Failure to remove red links from an article is not grounds for deletion.Gungadin 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The lead sentence of the draft slides from non-fiction to fiction without missing a beat. I've never seen an episode of EastEnders (heck, the only soap I've ever seen a full episode of is the one with witches and zombies and midgets and stuff). From my perspective, Reg Cox could easily be a real person who really died and influenced the story. I was saying on the EastEnders Wikiproject page that the out-of-world stuff had to be referenced, not that it made up the majority of the rewrite. However, upon re-reading it, the bigger problem is the breathless "isn't this wonderful?" POV of the draft. The draft asserts all sorts of POV opinions or credits an opinion to the "audience", which is almost as bad as "some argue". --Phirazo 03:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So now you're changing your argument, probably because you now realise that it is not "excessively In-World" as you so wrongly suggested earlier. You seem to just make things up as you go along to fit whatever stance you have decided to take that day, which is why I have no interest in your opinions (which you insist on forcing upon me whenever you can). The article is incomplete, but as you have an issue grasping that I will address your clueless assumptions. None of the information included in that draft is my opinion, I was only a year old in 1985 so I dont have an opinion on the impact of those episodes. Absolutely everything has been taken from secondary sources. Crediting an opinion from writers, press etc is perfectly acceptable so long as it's referenced and quoted where applicable, which it will be. Some of the storylines featured were controversial, some received acclaim, some characters were popular, this is not my opinion but the opinions of authors, critics and journalists. The show has been criticised widely over the years, but I cant find any criticism for those particular storylines, so unless you can provide me with alternative sources you'll have to make do with mine. I've never come accross an editor who manages to quote policies and guidelines as inaccurately as you do. I dont think you even understand what you're quoting half the time. Quite frankly my userbox is not really your concern, I have not put my userpage up for GA or FA you know, so your review is not necessary. When I publish it to main space feel free to critique it, until then find another user to harangue. I'm looking forward to seeing something you've written so I can pull it to pieces, but I wont hold my breath, seeing as you dont actually contribute anything to Wikipedia other than pointless comments that no one wants to hear.Gungadin 05:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment The ad hominem attacks aren't necessary, Gungadin. The reason I am criticizing the draft is that it is the only indicator of where these articles are going in the future. The articles have not otherwise changed in the last month. --Phirazo 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Not sure how I feel about this one yet, but I would like to point out that WP:PLOT does allow for an article to be mostly plot when it is apart of a larger article series or topic. At first glance it does seem to need more real world context to justify the amount of plot, but it could be there. Talking about what writers were on the show at what time, how the changing cast and crew effected the story line and production, and other real world information could be summarized, along with the plot, in this format. -- Ned Scott 20:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT also goes on to say "but not as a separate article". Its OK if this plot summary is inside Eastenders, but not on its own Corpx 20:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think WP:NOT takes into account just how much plot a long-running soap opera has, which would be inappropriate to add to the main article. Stephenb (Talk) 07:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think WP:NOT should take into account of this. An encyclopedia should not be a plot summary database. Corpx 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rationale given by DGG. InnocuousPseudonym 23:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Phirazo 00:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.