Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterloo Road characters

: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. No consensus on whether or not to delete or simply merge/redirect. Also, mass-nominations are procedurally flawed, as they don't allow editors to efficiently evaluate each page. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

=Waterloo Road characters=

(View AfD)(View log)

Articles nominated:

:{{la|Karla Bentham}}

:{{la|Grantly Budgen}}

:{{la|Kim Campbell (Waterloo Road)}}

:{{la|Tom Clarkson}}

:{{la|Aleesha Dillon}}

:{{la|Ruby Fry}}

:{{la|Danielle Harker}}

:{{la|Steph Haydock}}

:{{la|Helen Hopewell}}

:{{la|Emily James (Waterloo Road)}}

:{{la|Lindsey James}}

:{{la|Denzil Kelly}}

:{{la|Rose Kelly (Waterloo Road)}}

:{{la|Sambuca Kelly}}

:{{la|Paul Langley}}

:{{la|Jo Lipsett}}

:{{la|Siobhan Mailey}}

:{{la|Rachel Mason}}

:{{la|Ros McCain (Waterloo Road)}}

:{{la|Christopher Mead}}

:{{la|Luke Pendle}}

:{{la|Amy Porter}}

:{{la|Phillip Ryan}}

:{{la|Bolton Smilie}}

:{{la|Josh Stevenson}}

:{{la|Max Tyler}}

:{{la|Michaela White}}

:{{la|Brett Aspinall}}

:{{la|Roger Aspinall}}

:{{la|Maxine Barlow}}

:{{la|Janeece Bryant}}

:{{la|Chlo Charles}}

:{{la|Donte Charles}}

:{{la|Rob Cleaver}}

:{{la|Lorna Dickey}}

:{{la|Mika Grainger}}

:{{la|Earl Kelly}}

:{{la|Marley Kelly}}

:{{la|Jasmine Koreshi}}

:{{la|Eddie Lawson (Waterloo Road)}}

:{{la|Flick Mellor}}

:{{la|Izzie Redpath}}

:{{la|Jack Rimmer}}

:{{la|Melissa Ryan}}

:{{la|Lewis Seddon}}

:{{la|Davina Shackleton}}

:{{la|Andrew Treneman}}

:{{la|Matt Wilding}}

  • Delete. Sorry for the en-masse nomination, but these are the character pages that have no out-of-universe notability and just excessive plot summary. All relevant information is already at List of characters in Waterloo Road or List of minor & recurring Waterloo Road characters. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all I have been keeping an eye on these articles for months and made the main editors aware of the need to provide real-world context and establish notability using independent sources. There has been absolutely no attempt to do this. Vitally, there is no evidence that it ever will be done as there is insufficient coverage. It is not that these are bad articles, it is that they never can become good ones because there isn't the material out there. The JPStalk to me 21:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all This appears to be a large collection of original research based on interpretation of primary sources. If any of these characters has achieved significant real world coverage by independent reliable sources then that may be the basis of an encyclopedic article, but this is just something fans wrote based on their own personal knowledge and primary sources. If I am wrong, then please correct me by providing citations and preferably putting them into the articles. Chillum 21:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all - WP:OR. Crafty (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect them all to List of characters in Waterloo Road. As much as I disagree with The JPS about nothing being done to change them, ( I myself have tried before but within hours [sometimes minutes] they have been re-edited again) im sick to death of them, and it can be such a hardship even reverting the endless vandalism to them. let alone trying to get them in proper order. So just redirect them to that page, and have it done with. As the OP has said, all relevant information is already on there Harleyamber (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

CCould we add Waterloo Road Comprehensive to this? Same show, and the article suffers from the same faults as the character articles. The JPStalk to me 23:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waterloo_Road_Comprehensive - no concensus the last time it was nominated for delation Harleyamber (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

::That would have to be a separate AfD. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

:::Done - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterloo Road Comprehensive (2nd nomination). GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

  • merge for the minor characters merge properly, with information not just the duration, but the role in the plot,and the complete list of episodes in which they appear. And if even that is not wanted redirect. No reason whatsoever has been given above why a redirect is inappropriate. As for the major characters, & I am not familiar enough to tell whom they are, - keep them as separate articles, or as a second choice merge properly, with the appropriate information as above, or at the very least redirect. A redirect is the absolute minimum to give the posibility of compromise. No possible reason has been given why a redirect is inappropriate. I challenge any of the people who want it deleted to give one. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge minor characters properly to List of characters in Waterloo Road where they have notability and then set the several dozen redirects. Either keep major characters or merge only if sourcing is not available. Note: Mass nominations usually and quite sadly prevent diligent efforts for improvement during an AFD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - And who is supposed to decide which characters are "major" and "minor" without breaching WP:POV? And how are "major" characters any more notable. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

:::Good question., We do it by discussing them one at a time, rather than in a combination discussion like this, which combines the notable and the non-notable. We can and do use research to decide if something is notable, or for other things that come up in a discussion at AfD or about how we should handle an article elsewhere. WP:OR means we do not use OR for writing the content of an article. The usual criteria in the many such discussions which have generally kept such articles are whether someone is the protagonist or a principal antagonist, or has been a character of key significance to the story over multiple episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 16:02, 27 November 2009

::::We should only use independent reliable sources covering the topic to decide if they are major or minor characters, the problem is a lack of such sources which leads to the more likely course of people just deciding based on their interpretation of primary sources(ie original research). The rules about original research include how we decide which content goes into which subject, if we put a character in the "minor" or "major" article, then we need basis for that claim beyond primary sources or our interpretation of it. This is why I don't think merging would make sense, it is a judgment call without verification readily available, and yes merging content is about the content of the article so of course OR applies. There are several days left in this AfD to find such sources however. Chillum 16:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::If there were 4 or 6 or even 8 charactes in the above list, I would agree that the several days left could be adequate time for such research. But since mass nominations preclude diligent research, a proper merge will then allow sources for the multitude of characters listed in this AFD to be individually researched. Again, and not meaning to whine, it is the size of mass nominations such as these that makes very sensible suggestions such as yours so very difficult to meet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

::::::The issue is that this content was created as an act of original research without the benefit of proper sourcing. It is not simply about notability, but about verifiability. If such content should exist then it should be created by looking at the sources and creating content based on that, not by taking a large amount of original research and eventually(as in probably never) add sources to support it. We should not start with opinion and attempt to support it with sources, we should start with sources and represent those sources. Just my 2 cents. Chillum 21:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Not that people are required to, but has there been any substantial attempt to get any of them up to standard? We don't need perfection, but evidence of effort would be nice. Or a statement of what they will do to improve these, with evidence of sources. No reliable sources = no article. The JPStalk to me 16:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge all "properly", as DGG puts it. The default position for character articles is to merge and no reason has been given why that shouldn't be the case here. If any prove notable enough for their own articles, they can easily be re-split at that time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

:*What about the concerns regarding original research, that is one reason that has been presented as to why it should not be merged. Chillum 21:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

::*That would be a reason not to indiscriminately merge every word, not a reason to delete every article outright. Also, anything that can be sourced to the TV series is not OR. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

:::*The TV series is a primary source which we are not supposed to be interpreting, we need to use independent source's interpretations. Chillum 04:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

::::*Yes interpretations would be original research, but that doesn't mean everything (potentially) sourced to a primary source is original research. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::These articles are worthless by our strictest encyclopedic standards. Delete, and create redirects without history if necessary (I have already voted above). The JPStalk to me 16:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

::::::Are you claiming you thoroughly researched all 50 articles and determined that there is not one sentence even worthy of being in the history of the redirect? I find that highly unlikely, esp. considering that I checked a few at random and found usable material in every one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

::::::: The JPS has never liked anything to do with Waterloo Road or the articles, no matter whats put in them. Even when the have sources he still wants them gone 92.20.41.210 (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Aww, diddums. I can't recall seeing you add a source, so enough of the personal attacks and accusations, please. The JPStalk to me 18:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep/Listify/redirect/protect redirect if needed - AfD is not clean-up and this is one big merge subarticles into a list. If "vandals" or whoever is restoring content they obvious want to see it so redirects seem needed. It may also make sense to somehow indicate if there is an offsite wiki - maybe on the list's talkpage - for fans who just want more. -- Banjeboi 20:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

:How can you !vote for keep and redirect at the same time? :S GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

::So long as people realise that any merge article will not be the sum of these parts. The "information" would be significantly trimmed. Just because the kids want to see the content doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The JPStalk to me 18:52, 3 December 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.