Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storylines of 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. No sources were presented to demonstrate an encyclopedia article can be built for this topic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Storylines of Emmerdale

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a collection of plot summaries with no relevant commentary, fails WP:NOTPLOT. Avilich (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are references, but notability is unclear, this is just an extended plot summary in the current form. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, let me start by saying I have contributed to this article, but I also accept it's current form/state has room for improvement (considerably). The article (and indeed, numerous other "storylines" articles for soaps) should not be just a "list of storylines". The article was previously called "Major Emmerdale storylines" to emphasis the fact it was only discussing those major (notable) and not run-of-the-mill. There is perhaps a wider consideration to be had as to whether serial dramas can warrant storyline articles as WP:NOTPLOT does not particularly offer policy on these type of articles specifically. The other option is to develop articles per-storyline which itself can satisfy the appropriate notability criteria (like Eastenders have done). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLOT and WP:WAF ("Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary") are quite straightforward, plot information is only included to contextualize a notable topic that has received some real-world commentary in third-party sources. Which means that plot summaries are supposed to be succint, and spinoff articles that serve as containment zones for trivia that didn't fit elsewhere are not generally supposed to exist. Avilich (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lone keep voter above does not demonstrate how the article can be improved "considerably", despite the fact that he himself is a contributor, nor does he give any reason why NOTPLOT would not apply here. There is no commentary, reception, or anything else as mandated by that policy. The inclusion criteria also seem arbitrary, as only the "major" storylines (however one chooses to define it) are included. Avilich (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, it's only major storylines that receive sufficient coverage that would bring them closer to being considered notable. The issue here, from what I gather by your own rationale, is the manner in which the article is structured (which I have expressed an understanding of, to an extent) rather than purely its existence (though I suspect you would sooner it simply didn't exist). I guess, the article should be written in a way that is not just describing a plot in sub-sections, though the notability and reporting of many already exists and many sources are present to support that. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources that simply restate plot information have no bearing on notability. If you say the article needs to be rewritten, then that's an argument for doing away with this entirely. Avilich (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I may suggest is, if this were to be considered a deletion outcome (which isn't quite clear-cut), that draftify be an option so that improvement works (which is not disputed) have a chance to be attempted outside of mainspace. This also at least preserves the content if any particularly notable storylines could subsequently be spun off into their own articles. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this is deleted you can afterwards ask for a WP:REFUND and have it moved to draftspace (or userspace), and work on it for as long as you wish. Avilich (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: With respect, I understand that, I have been around for a while! It just seems to me that there is scope for doing something better with the article and it isn't unsalvageable, though may take some work and would make sense to do so rather than delete, *if*, and only if, that is the direction it goes. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTPLOT, part of the policy WP:NOT, which forbids articles that consist exclusively of plot summary (irrespective of how well sourced). Sandstein 09:40, 18 January 2022 (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.