Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who Shot Phil? (2nd 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. Consensus and improvement Peacent 14:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who Shot Phil?

Who Shot Phil? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - article survived previous AFD only because the Keepers insisted that the article would be cleaned up and made something other than a plot summary. In the intervening month there has been nothing done and the article remains a plot summary in violation of WP:PLOT. Otto4711 15:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per those comments on the previous AFDs, and the fact that this is the biggest plot in Eastender's 22 year history. Dalejenkins 16:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The fact that it is an incredibly notable plot doesn't mean that it's not a plot summary. If there's a significant amount of non-plot related information please add it, and maybe we'll have some grounds for keeping the article, but entire Wikipedia articles (especially the very long ones) that focus on the plot of a storyline of a television series (with one exception). Calgary 18:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - This is a plot summary, which is in violation of WP:NOT. Being the "biggest plot" in a show's history should not be an exception for WP:NOT guidelines. Corpx 17:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dalejenkins. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, one of the biggest storylines in one of the biggest soaps. It could have a cleanup tag on it for the next decade, thats not a good enough reason to delete the thing. —Xezbeth 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - the article was not nominated for deletion on the basis of having a cleanup tag. It was nominated for deletion because the promised improvements to the article--which is all that saved the article last time--were not made. The article as it stood then should have been deleted as a clear-cut policy violation and the little dribs and drabs being added now aren't IMHO making any great deal of difference. Otto4711 19:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable plot element of a major work of fiction about which a valid encyclopedia article could be written -- and when that article is written, it will need a plot summary. Third party sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] JulesH 19:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Those articles should be mentioned in the show's article. Corpx 19:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've just added a section of commentary to the article, based on the sources I listed above. JulesH 19:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We said we'd clean it up, and we will, one month isn't a fair time to give us, we have lives too, and it's summer - some of us may be on holiday, and most of us are working a lot too, cut us a bit of slack and please don't nominate this every month. -Trampikey^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Your edit history indicates you've made close to one thousand edits since the last AFD of this article closed. Not sure why if you've had time to make 25-30 edits per day you haven't had time to direct a few of them at an article where you knew there was action mandated. Otto4711 13:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Normally, I would say delete but per Trampikey's request, I suggest giving them 3 months, and then propose for deletion again. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if it was the biggest thing for EastEnder, shouldn't it be more suitable on the EastEnder page instead of its own? NobutoraTakeda 22:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [5]
• Keep This afd nomination is only a month after the last one closed. We have not been given adequate time to make the improvements.Gungadin 22:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  A month is a long time. I would say that a week would be excessive to see if the page could be cleaned up. If you couldn't rectify the situation in a month, how can others expect more time to make it so? The page doesn't belong for philosophical reasons and the justifications put forth could easily be overridden by saying that it should be mentioned on the show's page, not its own. NobutoraTakeda 22:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  Not really long enough when you consider that there is only a couple of active members of our project, and we have unfortunately been preoccupied with improving other AFDs. I have just added some sourced analysis. It is in its early stages and will be extended, but hopefully this at least shows that we are prepared to make the changes, we just need more time.Gungadin 23:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Your edit history shows close to 500 edits since the last AFD closed. If you need more time, then move the article to userspace and take all the time you need. Otto4711 13:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• How childish. My edit history has absolutely nothing to do with it. I have been preoccupied with other things and should not have to explain myself to you. Futhermore I have just added content to the article in one of those "500 edits". It is clear that you are desperate to see these pages deleted, in fact your account appears to exist merely to put pages up for deletion. Your autocratic behavior goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for.Gungadin

• Actually, my account exists to try to improve Wikipedia. As it happens, a large measure of what's wrong with Wikipedia is shite articles like this one that people defend because they're fans. What you call desperation I call exasperation at the piles of garbage strewn about Wikipedia passing themselves off as worthwhile articles. Otto4711 16:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• So your idea of improving Wikipedia is to restrict other editors from actually editing and improving articles? I think you are on a power trip and Wikipedia is not a suitable place for dictatorial people. Try improving wikipedia by actually doing some editing instead of branding other people's efforts as "shite". Perhaps you would find Wikipedia more satisfying if you did something other than contributing to AFD's or pointlessly counting other users edit history. Clearly you have a lot of time on your hands if you choose to count people's edit histories just to make a point. Put that time to a more productive use.Gungadin 17:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, my idea of improving Wikipedia is to add information that is sourced where I can and suggest removing articles in violation of Wikipedia policy when I find them. The last AFD preserved the article solely on the basis of what the supporters promised it would become. Lo and behold, as happens in pretty much every instance when earnest editors earnestly promise there will be improvements made, the articles sat there untouched. And so here it is again, with the same pleas of 'we need more time!' and 'don't delete it because it's so important!' If it takes another AFD to light a fire under you and do what needs to be done to get this article into some sort of shape that approaches some minimal inclusion standard, then so be it. Otto4711 18:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm amazed that you actually admit to using AFD's to manipulate other editors like this. Clearly you are abusing the AFD process and you even admit to doing so.Gungadin 18:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Your words, not mine. Your phony accusation in a desperate effort to save the article, not mine. Otto4711 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• It seems like you are Backtracking now because you realise that you have foolishly admitted to abusing the AFD process to manipulate editors. I shall be taking this further as I don't think any editor has the right to abuse the AFD process in such a way.Gungadin 20:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• You can try all you want to make this about me instead of making it about the article. I'm sure you'll even convince some people to buy the line you're trying to sell. It says a lot that you can't defend the article on its face so you have to attack the nominator. You feel free to take your phony accusations any damn place you please. I stand by this nomination and I stand by my use of the process. Otto4711 22:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I will do, and thanks for giving me persmission, not that I need it. I think it is you who is the attacker and your comments and total abuse of Wikipedia privileges proves it. You decided to counter comments I made about the article by actively looking up both mine and Trampikey's edit count to discredit us in some way. Totally unnecessary when all we want to do is improve the articles. You have a history of offending editors, perhaps you should ask yourself why.Gungadin 22:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Otto, seeing as you seem to be a fan of quoting policies, take a look at this one: WP:DICK. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• No matter how much you two want to try to make this about me, it's still about the article and the article still sucks. But, since this has already become far too much of a battleground, what with editors falsely accusing other editors of bad faith and calling each other dicks and all, and since I've said my piece about this article already, I'll leave y'all to it. Otto4711 04:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a strong believer in judging the article for its contents now, and not what it will be in the future. Corpx 17:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thankfully not everyone follows your philosophy then, because it would lead to every single stub on Wikipedia being deleted. Extending and developing articles is the whole point of Wikipedia. Many great articles have developed from short, unreferenced stubs. This article has already improved since the nomination and now has sourced analysis, which can be extended. It is no longer a breach of WP:PLOT.Gungadin 17:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the back ground and reception sections are clearly not plot summary and therefore this article does not violate policy. Tim! 17:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep on the rationale given above by Tim!. InnocuousPseudonym
• Keep as there are multiple sources providing real-world context. QuagmireDog 01:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Phirazo 00:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This is a good article. When I first clicked on it, I expected nothing but plot summary, which it originally was, but now this article has gone from this...[6]...to what it is currently at this moment, as in a lot better. This article now, besides plot summary, provides creation, reliable sourced references, and real-world impact. I must really applaud JulesH and Gungadin in how they fixed up this article and whatever, if anything else, they do to improve this article. Now if only I can get half of the soap opera articles to be up to this standard, I'll be a tad happy with soap opera articles on Wikipedia in general. It's not even just the soap opera articles, but a lot of television-related articles that need to be brought up to this standard on Wikipedia. Thank you all who improved this article. It just further proves that a lot of these articles need clean-up rather than deletion. Or at least, when they are deleted, to be re-created in better format by an editor and or some editors who will fix them up better than they were before. Flyer22 07:43, 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.