Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterloo Road Comprehensive (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge.

A purely mechanical headcount shows 8 'delete' and 6 'keep' votes.[1] I therefore considered 'delete', 'keep', and 'no consensus'. However, a closer look reveals that most votes actually include the possibility for 'merge'. Most 'keep' votes are based on the argument that "Waterloo Road is a popular programme", which does not preclude a merge. None of the 'delete' votes contains an argument against merging.

No WP:RS has been given that would indicate that the school has notability outside of the programme. The programme itself is about the school, and most of the article is about episodes from the programme. There is no clear boundary between the two articles, and their names are almost identical, one being just a shorter version of the other.

The only reason brought forward for keeping this separate is that the merged article may become too long. Indeed, the existing article for the programme, Waterloo Road (TV series) is already 31k long. With this article at 21k, it looks at first glance as if the merged article would add up to 52k, which, according to WP:SIZERULE, would mean that it "[m]ay need to be divided". But the actual size will be much shorter, because the concerns about excessive detail will need to be addressed, and because there seems to be a considerable overlap between the two articles.

I also looked at the cited examples. One of them, The Chatsworth Estate (Shameless), has since been changed to a redirect and remained that way for 5 days so far. The other one, Albert Square, remains separate, but that article is not entirely comparable, since it describes a real physical existing set. — Sebastian 18:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo Road Comprehensive[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Waterloo Road Comprehensive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. A non-notable location in a TV programme, failing WP:INUNIVERSE, WP:NOTPLOT and WP:N with no WP:RS. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but change as much as im agreeing with you lot on the deleation of the character articles, im not on this. I would hardly call it "non-notable" - Waterloo Road is a popular programme currently in its FIFTH series (with a sixth being filmed) and WR Comp is the primary location, just as the The Chatsworth Estate is in Shameless and Albert Square is in EastEnders. Just change it. Harleyamber (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; if anything, those should be deleted too if they show no out-of-universe notability. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the Albert Square one does. Just change the WR Comp one so it does too Harleyamber (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - "just change it" is not an excuse for keeping an article. Can you provide evidence that this article has out-of-universe notability? GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Yes i can provide evidence for it. There is plenty, just needs putting to use instead of just "deleting" articles Harleyamber (talk)
          • Comment - In which case, you need to actually provide evidence. Can you post some links here? GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as other crap does, indeed, exist. But to expand that there is nothing on this article outside of the primary sources, all information is taken from plots to episodes or from the official website. And looking at the Chatsworth Estate page I would redirect or delete it. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Christ, i don't suppose it would matter what anyone says really, you lot don't seem to listen to anyone else but other mods. I could say "just change it" and "yes there is evidence out-of-universe notability" till i was blue in the face and you still wouldn't acknowledge it. Seems to me its easier to just "delete" than "to improve" Harleyamber (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not sure who "you lot" are. The page has no secondary sources that establish notability and is written in an in-universe style. There are no "mods" in this AfD, nor on Wikipedia. If there are sources that take this article OOU then present them, asserting "there is evidence out-of-universe notability" gets you nowhere. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Because you need to provide evidence. I can say in an AFD that Waterloo Road has won the BAFTA for best fictional location, but that doesn't mean that people will just take my word for it and the article will be kept. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Im soooooo suprised wiki has lasted this long - there are only two ways articles can go, the right way - or the wrong way and NO MATTER which way they are done, there are always faluted. And by "you lot" im talking about you mods - and yes, you are mods - and on that note im done - wikipedia is not the "public" encyclopdia its advertised to be - FFS even the Wikipedia article on here is a complete joke its laughable. So do what you like, delete till your blue in the face for all i care now, Bye Bye Wikipedia

And finally, wikipedia itself will NEVER be NOTABLE, christ you can't even use it for notability for research as it is, no matter how much you mods reckon articles need all these refrences. And if its fround upon by Uni's, Schools etc for use - you lot really have no chance of making this site "notable", no matter how much you all preech- Harleyamber (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Wikipedia has proper references, and has been talked about in secondary sources. It is on 3,119 watchlists, and gets a minimum of 30,000 views a day or one view every 3 seconds, and is in the top 20 viewed articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is considered notable on Wikipedia. We are not preaching to you, and some schools may frown upon using Wikipedia for research but most academic studies find that Wikipedia is a useful resource, and more accurate than Britannica, due to the open structure. We're not a forum or message board and don't have "mods", we have contributors who volunteer their time, if you want to run a Waterloo Road wiki then I suggest you look into that (similar to lostapedia). As it stands you still haven't proven that a fictional school with no secondary sources or real world references passes the bar for notability. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you know, that's not our goal; our goal is to make it useful. That, to me, is enough reason to keep the article, or to keep in merged somewhere. And most of the people in this discussion are not mods--everyone has a voice here. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is this article useful in the slightest? It is 100% plot material. Not worthy of an encyclopedia. The JPStalk to me 17:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In agreement with the OP. The article is almost completely plot, which should be relegated to the episode lists and/or the main series article. Further, it's so massive. In addition, I had a brief look myself for RS; there aren't any on the school. --Izno (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research based on interpretation of primary sources only. Chillum 01:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep maqjor location in a major series. Possibly merge to a list of lcoation, but at least a redirect would be needed, so deletion is not appropriate, per WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'll repost what I had to say at the previous AfD, as the same issues apply. First of all, the school itself is not notable by our standards as it hasn't been the subject of more-than-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Furthermore, much of this material is unreferenced, going against our policy on verification. Going beyond verification, this also appears to be nothing but a synthesis of plot-related material without any actual analysis from a real-world perspective. Wikipedia isn't a place to write plot summaries about minor and nonnotable elements of fiction. ThemFromSpace 06:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Waterloo Road Comprehensive has been covered in-depth in real-world context in multiple reliable sources[2] as well as in reviews[3]. That the article has sat and not been improved within some arbitrary time is a reason to fix it through cleanup and sourcing, not deletion. The fact that the authors have not (yet) done so is also not a reason to delete, as Wikipedia does not demand it be done in some arbitrary time frame. If the sense is that the article has too much plot, that's yet another reson for cleanup and editing using the ample available sources, not for deletion. This discussion is about this one article, not the series or other series elements. As with all reliable sources, a reader must be able to (in principal) check the source themselves to confirm the profferred text. If a reader can read it, watch it, or see it, we do not always expect to have the little things written up in the newspapers. For some non-contentious facts, the primary source (the series) is occasionally acceptable for some simple WP:V. However, as stated above... there IS enough to source this article about a notable element that itself has been documented in Reliable Sources. Per WP:DEL, "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page", and "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Per Editing policy offers "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress", and "Preserve information: fix problems if you can, flag them if you can't." Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those references are passing mentions which talk about the TV program and mention the school in the context of the setting. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MQS, there's a difference between editing a topic to make it meet our policies and having one that just doesn't meet them no matter how much we pretty up the article. The notability guidelines aren't something that we can apply WP:DEADLINE to, as things are either notable or they are not. We can't just let articles hang around until they become notable, as we are not a crystal ball. Articles either meet the guidelines or they don't. We may edit articles to show that they meet the guidelines if at first they do not appear to but I have checked numerous sources (both this time and before) and I am fairly certain that this specific school has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Primary sources alone do not cut it. Until it is shown that this school has received significant, nontrivial coverage from third party sources, and nothing less than that, than the article shouldn't be left around in the mainspace. The fact that we are imperfect does not excuse us from applying our deletion policy to articles when we identify that they are not notable. In fact, the idea that we are a work in progress allows us to remove articles like this after it is discovered that they don't meet our guidelines and policies. Just because articles exist on Wikipedia doesn't mean that they should be here nor does it justify keeping them around if they don't meet our policies and guidelines. We should be actively trying to search out articles such as this one to better our standards, that is what makes us a better encyclopedia: consistently evolving standards of quality. ThemFromSpace 06:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does Wikipedia exist only for the editors? Or is it that we are here to serve the readers? Why seek out what is not yet in existance rather than fix what is? It strikes me that surmountable problems should be dealt with through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And not to divert too much from your very cogent comment, and to expand on my question above... how is it that the less-than-one-day-old account of GaGaOohLaLa [4][5], showing knowledge and abilities far beyond any newcomer I ever met, is using its first 24 hours on Wikipedia to go after every edit made by account Harleyamber [6][7] from the last 6 months? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Striking... AGF requires that this be accepted simply as coincidence. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure i agree with some of the arguments of MQS about the need for Wikipedia to do whatever the readers want, but it still does exist for a purpose, the purpose of providing information about encyclopedia-worthy things in proportion to their importance. Now, this show is extremely important in cultural terms, and therefore should have extensive coverage here. The major components of such important topics are best treated in separate articles. But even if merged to a list of locations, it would always have a redirect, and therefore deletion is inappropriate. . I challenge the nom or anyone else to tell why a redirect is unsuitable? DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the content to be merged if verifiable then fine, where are the sources that verify these subtopics of the major topic? A show can be very important and have significant coverage, while the subtopics of the show do not. We should not be more comprehensive on a subject than existing reliable sources. There are several days left in this AfD during which sources can be found. Chillum 16:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this show is "extremely important in cultural terms". Mozart, Shakespeare and Wordsworth are extremely important. Some soap opera isn't. Anyhow, if a redirect is needed, then deleting first would be good to exorcise this useless material. The JPStalk to me 17:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup as needed. A major plot element in a major TV series. As such, it is an appropriate spin-off from the main article to avoid that article becoming too long. Excessive detail and any WP:OR that exists (but keep in mind it isn't OR if it can be sourced to the show) can be removed through normal editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Excessive detail and any WP:OR that exists (but keep in mind it isn't OR if it can be sourced to the show) can be removed through normal editing" - if this is the case, we won't have much of an article left. Probably about a sentence... GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no evidence that this article can become satisfactory. There is no evidence that this article can ever transcend a mere description of the plot. Although the term "Waterloo Road Comprehensive" appears in many results, they are always referring to plot or casting elements. For instance, the term indeed appears in articles such as this and this, but both are rather trivial mentions. The latter contains some useful real-world production context for Waterloo Road (TV series). Can any of the article's editors or the inclusionists cite a specific source that would justify retaining this?
    There are Waterloo Road (TV series) and List of Waterloo Road episodes for an overview of the plot. We do not need another. I asked on the first AFD, "What do you envisage as the improvements you can make?", and no-one took any effort to reply. I have never seen any edit to this article that has been about anything other than a retelling of the plot. The main Waterloo Road (TV series) is not the best. I advise editors work to get that to some reasonable standard before creating spin-off pages. Perhaps they might take a look at some good television articles, such as EastEnders, to get an idea what needs doing to WR?
    GaGaOohLaLa is absolutely correct. There will be nothing left if you do strip away the plot material from thios article. That's the problem.
    The article does not need cleanup. It needs writing from scratch. As with notability problems, there would hold no prejudice against this being recreated later if it were written properly, with sources and real-world context. The JPStalk to me 17:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - shows how much The JPS knows - Waterloo Road ISNT a Soap Opera - its a Drama series, and there is a big difference. Irregardless of the type od storylines it has it's still not a soap opera. I suggest he does HIS research in future. 92.20.41.210 (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete/merge and redirect - seems like totally in-universe, and as such doesn't merit its own article. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/selective merge - it's amazing that a fictional school has a far longer article than most real schools. Merge anything useful into Waterloo Road (TV series). SMC (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I have never seen the show, so I can't really make a keep/delete statement. However, if I was familiar with the series, I would have to use an argument that unfortunately smacks of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS by comparing this two American shows, Barney Miller and Seinfeld. In the former, the squadroom in the 12th precinct is fundamentally the only set used on the show. As such, it is the show, and no separate article should exist as it can not be extricated from the show itself. OTOH, Monk's Cafe is a part of Seinfeld, and I believe it has received secondary coverage as a component of the show. It is not the primary location for that series, but a major location that has served as the plot of several episodes. I would support the inclusion of such an article. Bringing this back to the discussion at hand is where my question comes in - is the school the primary location for the series, or is it a major location? I ask this of people familiar with all three shows mentioned. Vulture19 (talk) 16:02, 5 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Waterloo_Road_Comprehensive_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138729951"