Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EastEnders off set episodes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. CitiCat ♫ 18:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] EastEnders off set episodes
Per WP:NOT#PLOT, an article full of trivial and unsourced infomation. Dalejenkins 16:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unref'd plot summaries. Bleh. Shalom Hello 21:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The concerns should have been brought up with the editors first, or at least mentioned on the article's talk page. We should have been given a chance to clean the page up and reference it first. I have already began referencing and adding sourced analysis and i will continue to refence in full. The page is not just trivial information, and I doubt it was even read before being nominated. There is info on production, writing and filming etc. Criticism and popularity will also be included.Gungadin 15:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Gungadin. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. This article also fails the notability criteria, specifically since it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (emphasis mine). There is one source that is neither a direct citation of an episode or affiliated with the BBC (which produces EastEnders), and that link [1] appears to be dead. --Phirazo 00:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment this is no longer the case. There are now numerous relaible and independent sources, from press and various other media. Plus there is much more critical analysis. It no longer violates WP:NOT#PLOT or Wikipedia:Notability.Gungadin 14:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I wouldn't call The Daily Mirror and The Sun "reliable sources". --Phirazo 16:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- National newspapers are perfectly acceptable sources to use and provide adequate coverage on the topic. Please don't let your apparent desperation to see this article deleted cloud your judgement. Can you prove that those newspapers are unrelaible? Clearly you are trying to discredit the sources as you want to see the article deleted, but you cant back up your claims. Precisely what sources would you deem to be reliable then? You discredit ones provided by the BBC and independent sources from newspapers merely because your reasons for objecting are no longer viable. They arent the only media sources that have been included anyway. I detect Bad Faith on your part, because of your dislike for me. Note that this user has had numerous disagreements with me in the past and has a tendency to purposefully antagonise editors who are merely working to improve wikipedia.Gungadin 17:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The Daily Mirror and The Sun are tabloids. These papers aren't exactly known for objective, fact-based reporting. I think the lead pictures for their respective articles say it all. --Phirazo 17:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- They are reporting on a television programme not the war in Iraq! You may not like the newspapers, but that doesnt mean that they are unreliable, this is just your POV. If you can Prove that those sources are unrelaible then they will be removed, but you and I both know that you can't do this. There are also sources from The Guardian in this article anyway, or do you also have a problem with that paper too? Seeing as you failed to address any of the comments put to you above, I will just dismiss this as yet another failed attempt to antagonise me.Gungadin 18:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This isn't personal Gungadin. Please stop making ad hominem attacks. Tabloids "emphasize sensational crime stories, gossip columns about the personal lives of celebrities and sports stars, and junk food news." (see Tabloid). Coverage of soaps is a matter of course for these publications, whereas more reputable publications will only cover soap opera plots when there is a significant cultural impact. This coverage of soap opera plots is junk food news. The article still doesn't make a claim of notability outside of EastEnders continuity. The few things that are notable outside of EastEnders continuity (like the reaction to the episodes set in Ireland in 1997) can be merged into the main EastEnders article. --Phirazo 22:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Your newspaper snobbery is irrelevant to this AFD. Whether you like them or not, tabloids are acceptable to use as published sources on Wikipedia and Millions of articles use them. This article has plenty of real world context, discussing production, impact, actors, awards, popularity, criticism, writers and filming, which are all perfectly acceptable inclusions for an article about a fictional topic. Going by your standards every article about a television programme, film or character would have to be deleted unless they exclusively use broadsheet sources (which this article has by the way). I think this is just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT being applied.Gungadin 23:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This isn't personal Gungadin. Please stop making ad hominem attacks. Tabloids "emphasize sensational crime stories, gossip columns about the personal lives of celebrities and sports stars, and junk food news." (see Tabloid). Coverage of soaps is a matter of course for these publications, whereas more reputable publications will only cover soap opera plots when there is a significant cultural impact. This coverage of soap opera plots is junk food news. The article still doesn't make a claim of notability outside of EastEnders continuity. The few things that are notable outside of EastEnders continuity (like the reaction to the episodes set in Ireland in 1997) can be merged into the main EastEnders article. --Phirazo 22:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- They are reporting on a television programme not the war in Iraq! You may not like the newspapers, but that doesnt mean that they are unreliable, this is just your POV. If you can Prove that those sources are unrelaible then they will be removed, but you and I both know that you can't do this. There are also sources from The Guardian in this article anyway, or do you also have a problem with that paper too? Seeing as you failed to address any of the comments put to you above, I will just dismiss this as yet another failed attempt to antagonise me.Gungadin 18:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The Daily Mirror and The Sun are tabloids. These papers aren't exactly known for objective, fact-based reporting. I think the lead pictures for their respective articles say it all. --Phirazo 17:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- National newspapers are perfectly acceptable sources to use and provide adequate coverage on the topic. Please don't let your apparent desperation to see this article deleted cloud your judgement. Can you prove that those newspapers are unrelaible? Clearly you are trying to discredit the sources as you want to see the article deleted, but you cant back up your claims. Precisely what sources would you deem to be reliable then? You discredit ones provided by the BBC and independent sources from newspapers merely because your reasons for objecting are no longer viable. They arent the only media sources that have been included anyway. I detect Bad Faith on your part, because of your dislike for me. Note that this user has had numerous disagreements with me in the past and has a tendency to purposefully antagonise editors who are merely working to improve wikipedia.Gungadin 17:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I wouldn't call The Daily Mirror and The Sun "reliable sources". --Phirazo 16:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is going in circles. My point about the tabloids stands, but I'm not getting dragged any farther into a flame war. Let's look instead at the asseration that this is notable due to "real world context", year by year. I'm going to take this sections, there is a lot to cover.
- 1985 About half is plot summary and half is "storyline intention", doesn't assert notablility above the usual "soap opera stuff". Covered by Mark Fowler.
- 1986 About half is plot summary, and half is trivia. Doesn't assert notablility above the usual "soap opera stuff". Covered by Angie Watts.
- 1987 The real world context is covered by Frank Butcher, the rest is a plot summary.
- 1988 Plot summary. Not notable. (Yay! The zoo!)
- 1989 Plot summary, with a bit of storyline intention. Only assertation of notablility is that these episodes scripted to be funny. Covered in Marge Green and Ethel Skinner.
- 1990 Somewhat notable. The first part is somewhat covered in Diane Butcher, the second part is covered in the individual character articles. --Phirazo 17:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- This article is a topic as a whole, and not purely based on just one episode. If each episode had its own article (like other series do) then you might have a point, but they dont. The topic is notable as it has been covered by numerous secondary sources, but you keep changing your arguments (as usual). Firstly you say "not notable" due to no sources. Then when sources are provided you say "not notable due to tabloid sources". Then when that doesnt work you try to discredit specific episodes for not being notable (despite numerous sources proving otherwise) and you then wrongly suggest that all the information is covered in other articles. It is not. We will just have to agree to disagree, there really is no point continuing this further and i'm not interested in doing so.Gungadin 17:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm working my towards a point about the topic as a whole. There is nothing notable about the fact that a few episodes were shot off set. You haven't shown that shooting off set is notable, but have instead tried to show the individual plots are notable. You then criticize me saying they are not. What information is notable in this article is or could be merged elsewhere. The tabloid arguement still stands, I just don't feel the need to rebut an arguement as ridiculous as there are "millions" of Wikipedia's 1,891,126 articles that cite tabloids. --Phirazo 18:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- You can continue to try and childishly discredit me as much as you want to, but it is once again totally irrelevant to this AFD and is almost as bad as if someone were to mock you for poor spelling (ahem!). That number was not meant to be taken literally as well you know, or did you really think i had actually tried to count them all? Like I said, i'm not interested in discussing with you further, it has become repetitive.Gungadin 18:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm working my towards a point about the topic as a whole. There is nothing notable about the fact that a few episodes were shot off set. You haven't shown that shooting off set is notable, but have instead tried to show the individual plots are notable. You then criticize me saying they are not. What information is notable in this article is or could be merged elsewhere. The tabloid arguement still stands, I just don't feel the need to rebut an arguement as ridiculous as there are "millions" of Wikipedia's 1,891,126 articles that cite tabloids. --Phirazo 18:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- This article is a topic as a whole, and not purely based on just one episode. If each episode had its own article (like other series do) then you might have a point, but they dont. The topic is notable as it has been covered by numerous secondary sources, but you keep changing your arguments (as usual). Firstly you say "not notable" due to no sources. Then when sources are provided you say "not notable due to tabloid sources". Then when that doesnt work you try to discredit specific episodes for not being notable (despite numerous sources proving otherwise) and you then wrongly suggest that all the information is covered in other articles. It is not. We will just have to agree to disagree, there really is no point continuing this further and i'm not interested in doing so.Gungadin 17:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have two questions Gungadin. What articles other than this one use The Sun or The Daily Mirror as a source? Which reliable, independent sources show this topic, as a whole, is notable? --Phirazo 21:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment this is no longer the case. There are now numerous relaible and independent sources, from press and various other media. Plus there is much more critical analysis. It no longer violates WP:NOT#PLOT or Wikipedia:Notability.Gungadin 14:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Phirazo 00:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep normally I would say delete, but the editors seem to be making an effort to turn it around and there is sufficient real world context for it to be kept.Legalbeaver 02:46, 18 July 2007 (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.
