Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EastEnders Live Week (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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders Live Week[edit]

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

This article is not encyclopedic. It is simply a run-down, programme by programme of the various episodes. Many of the links go to the BBC publicity about the series. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs deleting, it just needs some major work done. I have tried this, but several IP addresses continue to constantly treat the article in an "non-encyclopedic" way, like you mentioned. I have grown to give up on trying as these anonymous users clearly have no idea how things work on Wikipedia. --— RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 19:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes notability guidelines and is an encyclopedic article of a TV event including critical reception, cast promotion and production. Nominator seems to not understand what a primary source is and quoting relevant policy "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense." Now on this occasion as it is unlikely to have a secondary source as a Primary source for the plot is appropriate. May I suggest to the two above stop, winging and improve instead of complaining that there is not a source (find one yourself) and randomly deleting stuff saying that it's not encyclopedic while forming veiled attacks on IP users, using them as an excuse not to edit. 88.105.157.139 (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way, IP, but the page has got to the point where it's past a simple change of wording and it's fixed again – the entirety of it looks like it has been written by a 5-year old. Offensive or not... I'm just being truthful. Compare it with this, and you'll understand.— RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 00:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, solely because it's a mess. I will rework on the page by myself in my sandbox if needs be. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 22:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to delete. Stop throwing your toys out the pram and learn to write properly e.g. learn what sources are. Learn how to use ; and that it's not an excuse not to write proper sentences and finally the truth is you did not like the fact that someone else wrote the page. You've hardly edited it you are coming across as a troll and a sour faced person who if can't get her own way makes excuse after excuse to take the ball home. And since I can't write according to you are you going to delete this, most of which I wrote? Thought not stop trying to own pages. 88.105.152.249 (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 23:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pertinent WP link. I refer everybody to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Primary_information and would like some comment below. It seems to indicate that this article should be deleted. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And? I fail to see the point. All it says is what primary information is and that a primary source is permissible and should describe events rather than try and be analytically insightful or use some notion of explanation. Again another incorrect conclusion met by George (sorry!) 80.42.83.253 (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get personal. Anyway, perhaps I missed the part about a primary source being permissible. (It is indeed a very long screed over there.) Would you be so kind as to quote directly? My take on Wikipedia policy in general is that we don't use primary sources unless they also back up a secondary source. I am willing to bow to consensus on this, of course. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge - Merge some of the text & delete the rest - It wasn't all that amazing and we don't really need an article on it IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 23:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it "wasn't amazing" is not a reason to merge or delete an article.80.42.81.58 (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

....The point it it's better off in one main article, If this is kept It'll only be renominated until it either gets either Merged/Redirected/Deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which article can it be merged with? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 21:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair Davey, people will end up getting blocked if they persist in that, just because the week in your opinion was not amazing. It passes general notability and fits in with the guidelines end of and is the main article about the week. Be sides all other live episodes of corrie and Emerdale and EE have their own page. And like Rachel says where to merge to if one considers. 80.42.81.58 (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can make the article look as good as Queen Vic Fire Week then perhaps we can drop this argument. Since you're so dedicated to the page, here's some suggestions on what to do to make it at least hit the B mark – add more to the development section, get rid of all the sources clogging up the summary section which make it difficult to read, and maybe fix some of the grammar too. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 22:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that because it's in your opinion S*** I'm going to keep nominating it. That's a pathetic attitude and people carrying it ought to look at whether they should edit here. And I' do not need to make any conditions per say to stop you nominating once it passes GNC etc but your comments for improvement are appricated.18:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.95.158 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uninitiated Keep There are independent reviews [1][2][3] for a claim of notability. Though I would strongly suggest cutting down on § Background, which is currently largely cited to primary sources and mostly about things outside of the named week of episodes. Instead just mention lightly and give wikilinks like "The EastEnders Live Week follows closely to the plot of (wikilink to related storyline/list of episodes/etc.)". Queen Vic Fire Week#Plot did this better IMO as it only sticks to the four episodes of that week and nothing else. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 16:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the background section and revamped the page a little to make it mirror Queen Vic Fire Week. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 11:45, 16 March 2015 (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.