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. Davewild 07:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a never ending trivial dumping ground for any EastEnders mention, parody, reference and so on. A prose should be in the main article, and leave it at that. Transwiki the information to a relevant Wiki if needed. RobJ1981 17:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge Lots of sources and lots of notability. If you want this material presented better then go to it. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden 19:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Cleanup and merge into main article. Subdolous 20:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a long running UK sitcom Eastenders has had a huge impact on British popular culture. The regular participation of the Eastenders cast in television events such as Dimensions in Time make this particularly appropriate article. Artw 22:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Artw. This was previously split from EastEnders because it was too long. ^anemone|_projectors 22:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It is frivolous putting this up for deletion. The series has had a massive impact in Britian, although its influence is waning now. The article is too big for a father article. Its well written, has sources and pics. Needs some tidying. scope_creep 00:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A long section being moved to an article of it's own is more of an excuse in this case. Massive lists of pop culture don't serve much purpose, except to the trivia fans. As I said before: a prose is much better on the main article. The key is: condense the section when it gets too big, not just move it. RobJ1981 18:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with some weeding and further sourcing--most wp articles need this. What is important about a show is not just its plot but its influence.
• Speedy Keep. No rationale for its deletion has been put forward.--Father Goose 05:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - indiscriminate list and directory of loosely associated topics. Seeks to collect every passing reference to the show. A nice one- or two-paragraph "cultural impact" section in the main article, with sources, would sufficiently cover the territory. These laundry lists of "this one time on TV I heard someone say 'EastEnders'" nonsense need to go. Otto4711 14:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above, and as I'm sure you've seen from reading the article theres plenty there that isn't "this one time on TV I heard someone say 'EastEnders'", and deleting the entire article is no way to deal with the parts of it that are cruft. Artw 21:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as inherently notable, and original article wouyld be too long. Certainly cleanup can be done. Bearian'sBooties 19:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Since notability is dependent on external factors, there is no such thing as "inherent notability." The notability of the show is not inherited by every mention of the show in every episode of every TV show ever. Otto4711 00:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Per NOTINHERITED (and WP:N itself), there is enough independently verifiable information to support a stand-alone article. That's not to say the sourcing and writing couldn't be improved further, but as Colonel Warden pointed out, AFD is not cleanup.--Father Goose 02:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Verifiability isn't notability. Every fact is verifiable. That doesn't mean that every fact is notable. Otto4711 03:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per point raised above that Deletion is not cleanup. There aren't many pop-culture articles at this standard, even if it's not perfect. •97198 talk 06:02, 5 November 2007 (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.