Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Days of our Lives storylines (2010s)

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 delete all. If someone from the DOOL wikia site wants this stuff userfied so they can copy it over all they need do is ask. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Days of our Lives storylines (2010s)[edit]

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

Original research, no references to reliable sources. Violates WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOTBLOG RadioFan (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, unsourced fan site-ish material that violates the point of what this encyclopedia should be about. Rm994 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep our guidelines generally discourage excessive plot detail, but in this case wrapping up entire decades and thousands of episodes into a few paragraphs is hardly excessive. While I don't envy whoever has to source this stuff, it CAN be sourced: there's a number of magazines devoted to soap operas, and Days of Out Lives has a number of books about it, such as this one, probably as good a place as any to start. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to understand how you can describe these six lengthy articles as "a few paragraphs". —SW— ^converse 20:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are a few paragraphs when one considers they represent more than 11,000 episodes and thousands of hours of story. Maybe they should be a little more or a little less concise, but that's not what's up for debate. This is a case where our usual lists of episodes by season would be impractical, not to mention individual episode articles! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the scale of what you're saying, but given that this is 100K+ for all the storylines together, this needs to have some sources to be verifiable. The book you found is a good start, but someone needs to state an intent to source the material and follow through. Otherwise the amount of uncited stuff, due to its volume, can't simply be referred back to the primary source of the TV show itself. TransUtopian (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If every individual episode was discussed significantly in reliable sources, then I would say let's create 11,000+ new articles for each individual episode. The reality is that very few (if any) of the episodes or even the story lines are discussed significantly in independent, third-party, reliable sources. —SW— ^gossip 22:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I thought a 45 year continuous series might have some reliable sources on its plots. There's a memoir from executives producer Ken Corday, "The Days of Our Lives: The True Story of One Family's Dream and the Untold History of Days of Our Lives" [1], released for the 45th anniversary, which has some information on the plotlines he oversaw/wrote. There's also "The Days of Our Lives: Complete Family Album" by Lorraine Zenka, released in 1996 for its 30th anniversary, containing "a year-by-year history of the storylines" and "goes into quite a bit of detail on the story lines" according to Library Journal and Booklist's reviews [2]. The former is used as a reference alongside NBC and TVGuide Online in several of the major characters' WP articles. And while WP is not Soap Opera Digest, that magazine would summarize plots and be a reliable source. Given this, I'm !voting keep or a protected redirect with history to Days of our Lives. The latter is so the history's readily available if someone demonstrates strong interest in sourcing the articles, which is likely possible. TransUtopian (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sourcing for soap opera episodes isn't impossible. In addition to the guidebooks and retrospective books there are several weekly and monthly magazines whose entire function is to summarise soap opera episodes. Granted, 11,000 individual episode articles for something like this would probably be out of scope for a general-interest encyclopedia, but speaking from a pure verifiability standpoint there's no reason it couldn't be done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is Wikipedia, not Soap Opera Digest. If there is a Wiki for Days of Our Lives, take the material there. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and transwiki to a wiki which does not have standards that bar original research from its content. These articles represent a huge pile of unwikified, vapid plot summaries, which show strong signs of being copyvios. There are no reliable sources to verify that this content is notable or accurate. —SW— ^speak 20:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere's a small Days of our Lives wiki at http://daysofourlives.wikia.com/wiki/Days_of_our_Lives - can someone please transwiki these articles if the decision is delete? Two of the delete !votes have suggested it. However, I don't see evidence of a copyvio. I plugged in a phrase from the 2000s article and found only mirrors and quotes of WP's article. While the book Starblind found can be used to source the material, that would be a large task. I'm notifying WP Soap Operas of this AFD which WP:CANVAS says is okay. TransUtopian (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how is this not canvasing? That wikiproject does not seem non-partisan.--RadioFan (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion" is okay. If people at the wikiproject can demonstrate willingness to fix it up and/or more reliable sources, the result is an improved article. Blind "keep"s will not figure into a closer's decision. TransUtopian (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as unsourced plot summary riddled with original research. Reyk _YO! 23:26, 11 March 2011 (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.