Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of residences in EastEnders

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of residences in EastEnders[edit]

Nominating on the request of User:147.70.252.54. Unreferenced original research listing buildings in a popular UK television series. Some Wikipedians would refer to this as "listcruft" or "fancruft"; either way, there is no indication of the buildings' notability or significance outside the EastEnders universe. I agree with my work colleague on this. I am also nominating (with the same rationale):

B.Wind (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "List of Residences" as failing WP:V, with no references to prove the assertions, as well as lacking real-world notability, and therefore failing WP:FICT. – Toon ^(talk) 00:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The individual residences and buildings are not, other than a bare handful, notable or generally important to the plot of this show, hence I see little point in listing them. JulesH (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LIST ensure that each item to be included on the list is adequately referenced. There would probably not be much difficulty with Albert Square or the Queen Vic, but 3a Albert Square? Can't find a news item that ones mentioned in. And the article has a trivia section - that's ironic. SpinningSpark 02:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For this long-standing prime-time British TV soap opera, sources clearly exist on this material (for example [1]). Plenty more I am sure. Surprised to learn that the fictional locations are apparently not integral to the show and its cultural significance. Twenty-four years using the same locations tends to have the opposite effect on a soap, and its audience, I believe. Overall quite astonished to find these articles listed here. And I am absolutely not a fan of the show. --DaveG12345 (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's only really Albert Square which has any real-world notability, having entered common parlance; the houses themselves are not notable in the real world. – Toon ^(talk) 02:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Absolutely true - but I don't think a list of residences/buildings/inhabitants associated with a notable fictional work like EastEnders needs to guarantee for itself a "real-world notability" for each and every listed residence/building/inhabitant, does it? In just the same way (for example) that List_of_Beverly_Hills,_90210_episodes does not need to guarantee "real-world notability" for each and every incident in each and every episode it lists (and it lists rather a lot of them!). What I'm trying to express is this: I think the "bricks and mortar" way of documenting this particular soap opera via these list articles is perfectly in-keeping with the bricks-and-mortar content of the show. There isn't (to my knowledge) a corresponding "List of EastEnders Episodes" article... (personally, I hope not!) But (perhaps) - that's because the specific syndicate-able episodes (à la 90210) are less vital than the characters and the (more lasting) buildings portrayed in something like EastEnders... just perhaps...? :) --DaveG12345 (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment episodes are not elements of fiction, whereas the residences of a soap that you think is more notable than another are and require real world notability per the guideline WP:FICT; If every element of a show should be covered in an encyclopaedia just because the show itself is notable, you end up with truly ludicrous amount of coverage. – Toon ^(talk) 18:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That link is to a BBC site, the makers of the program so it is a primary source and cannot be used to establish notability. And I would further point out that even this BBC map does not show my example of non-notability above, namely 3a Albert Square. SpinningSpark 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Agreed. The issue of the notability of "3a Albert Square" is not satisfied by that citation of mine. Does that mean no list article can include "3a Albert Square" though? Is that really the issue here? I just wonder out of curiosity. (Incidentally, the BBC is used as a reliable source for very many items, including BBC-related items, right across WP - that's maybe because the BBC has an absolute and legally-enshrined mandate to scrupulous impartiality?) --DaveG12345 (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Personally, I wouldn't require strict evidence of real world notability if it could be shown that having a list of these locations was important for understanding the plot. The plot itself is clearly notable, and therefore I feel any article necessary to understand it to a reasonable depth is also necessary. But I just don't see the importance of this list. BBC sources can be used; a BBC source on a BBC-related article is counted as self-published, so can only be used within certain constraints (see WP:SPS), but isn't completely outlawed. What they can't be used for is to show notability. So, to answer your question, a list could contain "3a Albert Square" as long as (1) that list about a subject that was shown to be notable using non-BBC sources, and (2) there was a BBC source for the address (even a primary source, such as a reference to an episode of East Enders). JulesH (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah - and I'm sure such sources exist (there have been books and books written about this show) - unfortunately, I do not own any of them, so cannot help very much. :( --DaveG12345 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certain buildings and residences are important to EastEnders, such as "The Arches" (scene of many an important storyline), and these items should and could have references. However, where "Freezerland" or "Harts Chemist" (the article says it has only ever appeared on a label!!) came from, I have no idea - both articles need severe pruning and referencing (and possibly merging). Certainly, I think it would have been better to discuss such articles with members of the EastEnders WikiProject, and/or tag them the improvement tags, before such long-standing articles are deleted out of hand. Stephenb (Talk) 13:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Arches isn't even in this list, it's about residences only. Places like The Queen Vic, Albert Square and to some extent The Arches have a lot more real-world notability than any of the houses in the show, as they are commonly understood by much of the population. The houses on the other hand, aren't integral to the understanding of the show even, and have zero relevance or notability in real life. – Toon ^(talk) 15:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response There are two lists up for deletion! "The Arches" is on the list you haven't looked at! Stephenb (Talk) 09:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, good spot, I completely missed the second list for some reason... damn stack noms. – Toon ^(talk) 11:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the person who made the initial request to post this at AfD. This article is still completely lacking in citations and demonstration as to the notability of the buildings outside the EastEnders universe per WP:V and WP:FICTION. I have yet to see anybody offer a citation outside of the BBC (which is hardly independent) showing the significance of any of these outside of the fictional world of the series, no reviews, no books about the series, nothing except for a BBC.com map, which states most of the entries on the list trivially at best. The handful that are notable on their own (I trust that they meet WP:V and WP:FICTION, but I'll have to check them at a later time) already have their articles, which means that if we eliminate those that cannot be cited or verified, we are left with only the ones that have the articles in the first place... and this list would have to be deleted as it would fail WP:LIST. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete LISTCRUFT. Yes, I said it. The topic is too broad for an encyclopedia entry. Verifiability can only go so far as the topic must be suitable for an encyclopedia. Completely fails WP:LIST. Themfromspace (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These lists are neither unreferenced nor original research; the primary source is indicated at the bottom of each article: Map of Albert Square; and the show itself constitutes a primary source as well. Descriptive information that can be verified by anyone from primary sources without any special expert knowledge is not "original research" according to policy. It also cannot "fail WP:FICT", as that proposed guideline is currently being drafted to say nothing on the subject of lists (except to refer to the list guidelines). Neither does it "completely fail WP:LIST"—this guideline does not require every item on a list to be individually notable (except in general for lists of people), and in no way are these lists "too broad", as there are clearly a finite and manageable number of locations in Walford in the EastEnders universe. And the list provides a useful navigational purpose, which is one of the main purposes of lists. At worst, the information could be merged to Walford and Albert Square, but there is no reason to delete valid and verifiable information like this. As EastEnders gets a vast amount of coverage from independent sources, such as regularly published periodicals like Soaplife and Inside Soap, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that much of the information in these lists could be verified independently by those magazines, which would indicate enough notability for the separate topic of the buildings and residences in this long-running and popular soap. Of course the contents of these magazines are not available online, so we couldn't simply prove it with a Google search; it would require extensive research by someone who has access to these sources. DHowell (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, it would be quite easy to comply with WP:V, then... All that would be needed are the citations (I believe that both those periodicals you named have web sites, by the way) and the demonstration of the buildings' significance outside the EastEnders universe - those that already have cited standalone articles are not the problem here. It's the ones that don't. As of this writing, the number of citations for either nominated article is zero. B.Wind (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, rather than jumping straight to nominating them for deletion, why not tag them for improvement? And/or help with that! Stephenb (Talk) 09:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DaveG12345. 19:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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.