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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Major Emmerdale storylines[edit]

Major Emmerdale storylines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a WP:TVGUIDE. Not encyclopaedic, and full of WP:OR and WP:FANCRUFT. DarkGlow (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Whilst I have historically expressed an interest in Emmerdale articles, I do feel the article in question could do with a cleanup and perhaps trimming. The fundamental purpose should be "major" storylines which is in itself supposedly meant to be notable storylines only. It's also just a single article housing this material, in contrast to other soaps such as Eastenders (which the nominator self-claims to have a vested interest in), which has a separate article per major storyline. If we're getting into the WP:FANCRUFT debate, then we'd have to call into question many sub-articles of every soap that have an article on wikipedia. Essentially, this article separates content that would have otherwise been in the main article, itself justified for inclusion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle: I fail to see what relevance my editing interests have here. My user page also mentions my interest in Doctors, but I proposed a deletion on a Doctors article last week. If a page is not notable per WP:OR, regardless of whether I enjoy the topic, I'll nominate it for deletion. (And I do enjoy Emmerdale) – DarkGlow (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkGlow: I was clear to offer a fair rationale in my comment beyond my observation that you appear to only have looked at the Emmerdale major storylines article for deletion over the Eastenders ones. Regardless, in this instance I do disagree with your deletion nomination rationale on the basis that my opinion of this article is that it does, or should, form part of the core articles for the soap in question. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle: As with EastEnders, I feel a redirect to a storyline section, such as with Storylines of EastEnders, would be more suitable than a standalone article. – DarkGlow (talk) 12:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the British (or any other nationality) version of Soap Opera Digest. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral leaning to redirect to Emmerdale#Storylines. Let's all remember that daily soaps don't have episode lists on wp, and therefore have no place to "collect" plot for decades of story. However, there is still WP:NOTPLOT, and this is this article's current downfall. If it was accompanied by sourced non-trivial development and reception info, this article would have a reason to exist. Until then, a section in the main article should suffice, and a redirect preserves the history for future reconsiderations. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. Currently completely WP:NOTPLOT. I don't know if there's a particular good way to cover the overall plot in a way similar to episode or season lists, but this structure doesn't work. TTN (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ミラP 18:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ミラP 18:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A useful summary for those not fully aware of Emmerdale's storyline history and it is certainly in no way near to being a WP:TVGUIDE. The article, however, could do with more references and it does slant too much towards recent storylines which could dilute somewhat the notion that the article contains information on the soap's biggest storylines. Rillington (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Violates WP:NOTPLOT, which is policy, and mandates that we must not have articles that are only plot summary - whether sourced or not. Sandstein 07:36, 19 January 2020 (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.