Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Thompson (Hollyoaks)

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 draftify to Draft:Harry Thompson (Hollyoaks). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Thompson (Hollyoaks)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There's been two rounds of edit-warring in the psat few weeks as to whether there should be an article at this title or not, with DarkGlow, Cjquines10, and Polyamorph opposed and 108.20.174.38 (the author) the only one in favor. Per WP:BLAR, best to take this here and get a formal consensus. I submit that this is WP:FANCRUFT, maybe appropriate for a fan wiki but not for Wikipedia. If there is a case for an article, I think WP:TNT would still apply since almost all of the content is in-universe information. Restore redirect. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - it's 100 kilobytes of long rambling plot summary, and it was largely sourced to The Sun. This would be ideal for a Hollyoaks fan wiki, but not here - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without deletion protecting it or sanctioning users as appropriate. It is not appropriate to take action against content, even content of little discernible value, on the basis of editor conduct. Even if it looks like trash, there is value in preserving the material in the history of the redirect so that it could be merged if appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Little value to the encyclopedia, as this is mostly plot summary there is no justification for an independent article and this character is already covered in the list article. Polyamorph (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know First, I want to point out some inaccuracies in this discussion. Tamzin claimed that DarkGlow, Cjquines10 and Polyamorph all opposed to have this article. Here's some context. When I posted my first version, DarkGlow and Cjquines10 did oppose it, and DarkGlow pointed out some problems of the article. I made some changes based on his advice and posted my second version. There were still some problems in the new version, but I assume that DarkGlow doesn't insist on deleting it anymore, he even did some editing to this article himself. David Gerard claimed that my article was largely sourced to The Sun. It did have some references from The Sun, but it was a small portion of my references. It wouldn't have a big impact if I remove these references. Actually, all these references could also be found in other sources. By the way, this article is about a soap character, and The Sun is not more unreliable than other sources regarding soap. I'm new to Wikipedia edit, although I frequently read Wikipedia articles. I'm surprised that there are so many low-quality articles full of wrong information out there and no one takes action, including the section I tried to replace with my article. It turns out that people do take action, just not where I expect. I just want to help to improve Wikipedia. Now I know the problems in my article, and I can improve it. If the plot is too detailed, I can make it more concise. As for Polyamorph, I really don't know why he opposes this article. Every time he provided different reasons, so I don't know if I could ever satisfy him by improving my article. I just don't understand why people are so determined to kill my article. I'm not sure if I want to put effort to improve my article just being deleted later without any taces left. 108.20.174.38 (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unclear of my rationale, read my !vote directly above your own.Polyamorph (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had read your post. I had also read your previous posts about my article. At different times, you provided the following reasons: 1)no justification for independent article for this minor character. 2)this character is already covered in the list article. 3)this is mostly plot summary. He was initially a minor character, but since 2015 he was no longer a minor character. Many characters in that list have their own articles, and some of those articles were expanded from the sections in the list article. The plot is too detailed. You added this later and it was also pointed out by other people. I know this is a problem, but if you oppose my article for the other two reasons, I can't change your mind by improving my article.108.20.174.38 (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I added the tag {{Long plot}} before restoring the redirect, so it is misleading to suggest I've altered my rationale. I didn't include it in my first edit summary but edit summaries are not the best place for a fully justified rationale anyway, they are quickly written to give other users an idea of what edits were made and why. There is currently no justification for a standalone article that is essentially all plot when the character is already covered in the list article. Polyamorph (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This article has potential; a simple WP:BEFORE would show you that the character has significant in-depth coverage across WP:RS. It may not be perfect as it stands since it relies on a lot of plot information, but this article is not non-notable and AfD is not a cleanup tool. As I am on the AfC committee, I can oversee the progress made on the article if it were draftified and accept/decline based on its quality. I consider myself to be a good judge of soap article quality since I have created several soap-related articles which are rated as GAs. – DarkGlow • 08:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify if there is anyone who wants to salvage this. Right now this is gigantic piece of plot summary WP:FANCRUFT with a reception section that's two sentences; one is mostly irrelevant (about the actor), second is about fans wanting to see the character back (run-of-the-mill for anything these days). No evidence this meets WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - This article is really messy but the subject itself is notable. There are so many better sources available and the duration of this AFD will not be enough time to fix it. It can be rewritten and refocused on treating it like the work of fiction it is. This will be a time consuming because it really is in-universe and goes on forever - but putting it into draft form will give those interested the chance to improve it.Rain the 1 15:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever I'm not sure if I want to save this article anymore. Maybe I should give up. I'm here not to convince anyone because I know how hard it is. I just want to express my opinion. Everyone here except me is a veteran editor. You guys know that many articles started from problematic drafts then got improved over time, so if an article can be improved, maybe we shouldn't rush to delete it. It's inappropriate to give inaccurate or misleading information in an article, and I think this also applies to the discussion here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus claimed that my article was just a plot summary and a reception section. I'm not sure why he ignored all other sections. The reception section is brief, but it's not two sentences. In the first paragraph of this section, I listed the nominations and awards received by this character and the actor for portraying this character. I don't know why Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus thinks this is irrelevant. Some of the awards were for the character and some of them were voted by the audiences. This is exactly the reception to the character from critics and audiences. It's normal practice to include awards in the reception section in an article for a TV character. 108.20.174.38 (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The other sections are still mostly plot summaries. Information on awards to the actor primarily belongs in the article on the actor, it was he who received the awards, not the fictional character. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The other sections are not plot, but you can't avoid plot when you are talking about a TV character. Some of the awards were for the character not for the actor. Even if the awards were for the actor, they were for portraying the character, you can't say it's irrelevant. Actually, in every article about a TV or movie character, the awards are included if they got some. 108.20.174.38 (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per DarkGlow.4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per suggestions by other editors. In the event that the primary author of the article is not interested in improving the article in draft space to a reasonable standard and abandons, it will be deleted after 6 months of inactivity anyway. Haleth (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2021 (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.