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. The arguments poised for deletion are not valid. The concerns raised in those arguments may be valid, but deletion is not the sole option for abating those concerns, when simple editing can easily resolve them. Deletion is not a tool for making editing easier or more convenient. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Mitchell[edit]

The Secret Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete per WP:PLOT and WP:NOTE. This has achieved as much coverage as any other soap opera storyline, and therefore does not merit its own article. All of this infomation seems to have been directly copied from the Danielle Jones (EastEnders) article anyway. Dalejenkins | 14:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article has been redirected several times to Danielle Jones (EastEnders) but was always reverted. I gave the editor who started the page a chance to improve the article but there's nothing there that isn't covered in the Danielle Jones article. Deleting the page would avoid redirection wars. Then perhaps re-create as a redirect after deletion. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 16:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sarilox (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It has refs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Per WP:NOTE - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs)[reply]

How does this pass WP:NOTE? You need to elaborate before your argument can be considered. Dalejenkins | 19:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this one actually has good secondary sources about the plot. Even those with the most restrictive views on NOT PLOT agree that if there actually are sources for discussions of the subject, then there can be an article, just like for other topics. It passes WP:NOTE, of course, on the General notability guideline. I dont like to prefer this as a reason if there's something more specific, but it does have its place. People who dislike this sort of article usually use that guideline to keep articles like this out, but it works both ways. DGG (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as it's a substantial copy of the character page. That's just splitting information to split information. --Izno (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a good deal of duplication--including some excessive duplication within this article. But the plot of these long series is probably best handled by being broken down in just this way. It's a way that should be encouraged. The place to remove details from is the article on the characters. But this sort of thing is an editing decision. DGG (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree on this point. The duplicated material is all information pertinent to a single character, so deleting it from that character's article seems far from a sensible editorial decision. Frickative 06:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If you remove the content that's directly copied from Danielle Jones (EastEnders), all that's left is 3 paragraphs of in-universe plot details, and 5 lines of unreferenced reception. Unnecessary content duplication. Frickative 06:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It shows the opininons of the storyline from the producers/directors points of view also providing a more detailed plotline for the development of the storyline. Alex250P (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do think this storyline is notable and it has had impact etc, but this does not add to what has already been covered in the Danielle Jones article. If it did, then I would have no problem with it staying, but a repeat of information is just not necessary when you consider that all elements of this storyline can or will be covered in Danielle Jones and Ronnie Mitchell.GunGagdin^Moan 14:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep article is well referenced and no one has impeached any of the sources, so as others have said, it meets WP:N. Issues of duplication can be addressed editorially as a merger. Not a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing but plot coverege from an in-universe perspective. This subject fails WP:N because it hasn't had a significant impact in the real world. The amount of viewers it achieved doesn't evidence notability if that is the only fact worthy of mentioning. Verifying the plot is one thing, but the episode's notability in the real world is another. If it hasn't achieved significant coverage, which the sources provided don't evidence, then it should be deleted. ThemFromSpace 06:46, 17 April 2009 (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.