- 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. T. Canens ( talk) 10:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Baldwin family (Coronation Street) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article should be deleted as it fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY #2 because it is a genealogical entry that does not enhance the reader's understanding of a notable topic. It also fails WP:NOR as it can't be attributed to a reliable source. KAP03 Talk • Contributions 03:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- The article also fails WP:GNG as it has no "significant coverage in reliable sources. KAP03 Talk • Contributions 16:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- WP:NOTGENEALOGY wouldn't apply to fictional families, I daresay. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've linked to this discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Coronation Street. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete (or redirect to Mike Baldwin (Coronation Street) who appears to be the "head" of this fictional family). Works about fiction should be written from the point of view of the real world, and as the article currently stands, it only contains "in-universe" information, so fails WP:PLOT. anemone projectors 19:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete It's an unsourced stub and the first line of the article even gets the family's name wrong. I don't think a redirect would be appropriate because there are multiple articles it could redirect to. One for each family member. I think this would better serve as a category rather than an article. There are a few other similar articles created by the same user Including Barlow family and Connor family. I think if this article is deleted it would be sensible to nominate those for deletion as well. Eopsid ( talk) 16:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I have bundled the following articles according to User:Eopsid - KAP03( Talk • Contributions/ Your Page) 17:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Barlow family ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Connor family ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Comment: Can I advise against bundling in this case? Especially given that this discussion has already been going on for a while. A couple of separate nominations wouldn't hurt. Josh Milburn ( talk) 22:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - If notability cannot be established, there is no reason for this to exist. Also include the two articles above if those end up being counted in the closing. TTN ( talk) 02:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete A fictional genealogy with absolutely no sources whatsoever. Longevitydude ( talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep due to readily available sources such as the series itself, but beyond that also numerous online articles talking about the family and even such published books as this. -- 24.112.201.254 ( talk) 00:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Respectfully, an article should have sources to back it up which this stub does not have. I you feel like it should stay, then you can fix it up and add sources. Longevitydude ( talk) 00:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm an avid genealogist and I think these three stubs need to go so that should tell you something. Longevitydude ( talk) 00:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The only sources are internal to the series itself or character/plot summaries. No significant coverage in independent sources. Applies to the other family articles Eopsid mentions, as well. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:19, 18 January 2017 (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.
- 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. T. Canens ( talk) 10:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Baldwin family (Coronation Street) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article should be deleted as it fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY #2 because it is a genealogical entry that does not enhance the reader's understanding of a notable topic. It also fails WP:NOR as it can't be attributed to a reliable source. KAP03 Talk • Contributions 03:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- The article also fails WP:GNG as it has no "significant coverage in reliable sources. KAP03 Talk • Contributions 16:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- WP:NOTGENEALOGY wouldn't apply to fictional families, I daresay. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've linked to this discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Coronation Street. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete (or redirect to Mike Baldwin (Coronation Street) who appears to be the "head" of this fictional family). Works about fiction should be written from the point of view of the real world, and as the article currently stands, it only contains "in-universe" information, so fails WP:PLOT. anemone projectors 19:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete It's an unsourced stub and the first line of the article even gets the family's name wrong. I don't think a redirect would be appropriate because there are multiple articles it could redirect to. One for each family member. I think this would better serve as a category rather than an article. There are a few other similar articles created by the same user Including Barlow family and Connor family. I think if this article is deleted it would be sensible to nominate those for deletion as well. Eopsid ( talk) 16:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I have bundled the following articles according to User:Eopsid - KAP03( Talk • Contributions/ Your Page) 17:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Barlow family ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Connor family ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Comment: Can I advise against bundling in this case? Especially given that this discussion has already been going on for a while. A couple of separate nominations wouldn't hurt. Josh Milburn ( talk) 22:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - If notability cannot be established, there is no reason for this to exist. Also include the two articles above if those end up being counted in the closing. TTN ( talk) 02:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete A fictional genealogy with absolutely no sources whatsoever. Longevitydude ( talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep due to readily available sources such as the series itself, but beyond that also numerous online articles talking about the family and even such published books as this. -- 24.112.201.254 ( talk) 00:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Respectfully, an article should have sources to back it up which this stub does not have. I you feel like it should stay, then you can fix it up and add sources. Longevitydude ( talk) 00:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm an avid genealogist and I think these three stubs need to go so that should tell you something. Longevitydude ( talk) 00:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The only sources are internal to the series itself or character/plot summaries. No significant coverage in independent sources. Applies to the other family articles Eopsid mentions, as well. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:19, 18 January 2017 (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.