Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of soap opera recasts (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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of soap opera recasts[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)

This is an extremely long (and yet still incomplete) list of recasts in various soap operas. Main characters? minor characters? doesn't matter this list includes them all. Some are referenced, many are not. Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also does not meet WP:LISTN since many of these characters aren't even notable and there is no source discussing the larger topic of soap opera recasts. Last discussion did not result in a consensus. Rusf10 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first no-con nom was the result of a really bad close with a bludgeon of 'I promise I'll improve it' from an editor that never did (and has been gone since 2014); by count, should've been a clear delete. A katamari mess of all kinds of soaps of all nations in all timeslots and incredibly finite detail which doesn't discrimitate between regular recastings, recasting done for personal problems, and recastings of prop child baby actors done for soap opera rapid aging syndrome reasons. In closing; the article is a total mess. Nate • (chatter) 21:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would think each respective soap opera article would list their characters and actors over the years, not sure why these need to be grouped like this. Reywas92^Talk 22:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – for the past few months I have been working a lot to improve it and complete it, and I will continue to. I think it should stay. I will work tirelessly to improve it. What can I do?

Some suggestions I have:

Improve the lead and do overview– e.g. talk about temporary recasts, general recasts, SORASing etc.
Include more sources
Make the lists into tables
Make it more complete

I am very happy to do all of this 😊 Personally at first I thought this article was a mess, but the past few months I have worked so hard on improving it and making it more complete and I think that it is a really good page for reference – especially for characters and soap operas which do not have their own pages/sections. DaniloDaysOfOurLives^Talk! 23:45, 15 May 2021

Comment The last thing this article needs is even more lists and tables, and to focus the lede on niche soap jargon the average reader will never understand will make it overbearing. The article already mixes daytime, primetime, and multi-language programs. And even if you can source everything, you're talking a 1,000+ reference section that will break a web browser. Nate • (chatter) 23:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolute trivia that is not backed by any claim of notability. If the topic actually has navigational worth, I'd create a category for actual articles. We definitely don't need a list of every minute recasting to ever exist. TTN (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A category would not work for the characters, as the recast concerns the actors and not the character themselves. – DarkGlow • 11:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I love soap operas, I do not think this topic is particularly notable for its own list. The information about recasts can instead be communicated either on the specific character articles or articles on the show's cast members as a whole. I do not think is a particularly helpful list even for readers interested in this subject. Aoba47 (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. This list has potential to be sourced over time, and we have DaniloDaysOfOurLives and myself willing to do that, as well as other potential soap editors. List of soap opera villains is a perfect example that a long list of soap opera characters can be sourced and executed well. I want the article to be draftified so that all previous contributions are attributed if the article one day meets GNG and is moved to mainspace. – DarkGlow • 11:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You can source everything in this article and it would still would still fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTN. It is simply an article that should not exist in any form. I oppose Draftifying.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of what is essentially trivia, that does not pass WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete largely per WP:TNT - many of these are unsourced and unimportant, and the rest is elsewhere. The EastEnders casting information (for example) appears to all be at List of EastEnders characters or subpages, though not in a single list. Without evidence that the topic itself is notable, we don't need a separate page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous editors who have said that this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and I don't think that's a fixable problem in this instance. This information belongs on the articles for the individual soap operas (or characters, as applicable). TompaDompa (talk) 18:05, 22 May 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.