Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakdale (As the World Turns)

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. The arguments to keep the article fail to cite any policy-based reason for doing so, whereas the delete position has multiple policies that would seem to support it. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oakdale (As the World Turns)[edit]

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

In-universe, unsourced OR, tagged for sources for 3+ years with no improvement. Doesn't seem reparable, as nothing in the article at all is out-of-universe, nor does it assert real-world notability. Deprodded. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending - Unless everyone else votes for deletion, I'm waiting for other people's opinions. This article should be about the fictional city itself, not some... article with an identity crisis. Springfield (The Simpsons)... has receptions, but... it's not a typical article about fiction, such as Sam and Diane, Pauline Fowler, or List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters... it's unique. This article, on the other hand, is badly edited and requires a lot of cleanup and receptions. Look, I have previously nominated soap-related articles before, and others hounded me for being the witchhunter of soap operas. List of... soap-topics are not that notable, yet people persist notability proofs for existence. If this discussion results keep, then it's time to remove list of people in this article, as it is irrelevant to the fictional city in general. --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as 100% unverified to reliable secondary sources, and consisting entirely of plot. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect: Though it has insufficient sources, it can still be worked on with proper sources found. Get rid of lists and people except for staff, cops, etc. but only to a small portion and not a big part of article. Those parts still matter. Or, just redirect it to As the World Turns so the information remains accessible. Casanova88 (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I conquer with Casanova88! Everything he said was on-point to what I'd say. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 19:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge the Location section into the main article or simply delete as a massive dump of in-universe details. I'd guess 95% of the current content is inappropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NOT#PLOT/WP:NOTDIR/WP:WAF/WP:TRIVIA. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reasonably good articles on fictional places, e.g. Walford. The grounds given aren't in themselves reasons for deletion, and even if nobody can be bothered to improve it, it shouldn't be deleted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 15:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — User: Fourthords had it right. Ditto the policies pointed to by User: sgeureka. Keep arguments are WP:OSE-based. Nothing in this article is encyclopedic. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:19, 6 March 2012 (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.