Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of General Hospital

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 wasmerged each of the articles had a summary section which gave an overview of the periods and included information beyond just a plot summary. I have moved each of these sections into the article History of General Hospital and redirected the period articles to it. Gnangarra 14:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of General Hospital

History of General Hospital (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
History of General Hospital (1963-1969) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
History of General Hospital (1970-1979) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
History of General Hospital (1980-1989) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
History of General Hospital (1990-1999) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
History of General Hospital (2000-2007) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
General Hospital/Current Storyline List (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete all - Wikipedia is not for soap opera plot summaries. Otto4711 19:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep all- Why alienate editors/readers who are interested in this stuff so long as it is verfiable and concerns a major television show? --164.107.222.23 19:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, it may be useful to fans, but Wikipedia is not a General Hospital fansite. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't like detailed plot summary articles, but this is enormously better than the articles on individual episodes. I think this much discussion of the plot is altogether appropriate on Wikipedia, because it is part of what i suppose we have to call the cultural heritage. The alternative is to put the whole thing into one immense article on the show as a whole, or to rely on the articles for the individual characters. relying on the characters means telling the plot twenty times over. DGG 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Or, we could just delete these for being flagrant policy violations and, should someone god forbid start writing plot summaries for every episode of a soap opera delete those too. Otto4711 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all per DGG - Ranma9617 02:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. After looking at one of the articles, I think NOTPLOT is being misapplied. That policy cites articles that are "solely a summary of that work's plot." In this case, I saw analysis, ratings figures, and other context. Yes, there was a lot of plot, but consider that most shows only have around 22 episodes a year; daytime soaps run five days a week (without reruns?), and these articles are summing up a decade's worth of shows at a time. --Groggy Dice T | C 08:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - shouldn't you look at all the articles and not just one before saying you want them all kept? Otto4711 12:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply - I figured that the other ones would be much the same, but I take your point. So I just looked at the 1990-1999 article, and it can't be accused of being a plot summary at all. I've gone on to look at the rest. 1963-69 is framed by an overview section, and the size of the plot section seems reasonable for six or seven years worth of storylines. 1970-1979 and 1980-1989 have analysis and context, and admittedly huge plot synopses, but as I've said, ten years of plot is being summed up. If you think it's too much, a radical editing cut would be better than total deletion. 2000-2007 seems much like the 1963-1969 article. But I agree that it would be a good idea for everyone in this discussion to see the articles for themselves before commenting. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think a summary along the lines of Star Trek would be more appropriate. Corpx 04:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • After all the times you've offered this and all the times you've been shot down over it, you really ought to know by now that PAPER is not a free pass for articles. Whatever the storage medium, articles must still meet relevant policies and guidelines to be retained. Otto4711 12:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Just plot summary here, fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Jay32183 22:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note - while not 100% dispositive, a similar series of articles for All My Children was just deleted. Otto4711 13:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of All My Children, Wikipedia is NOT the place for plot summaries. Whether its episode-by-episode or season by season, I dont think an encyclopedia is the place for them. WP:FICT states that "Plot summaries are kept reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply to summarize them." I think this article is in gross violation of that line. It also goes along to say "It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article rather than standing alone as an article.", which this article also violates. Corpx 04:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is there a General Hospital Wiki where this can all be moved too? --Hemlock Martinis 04:21, 6 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.