- 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 keep. j⚛e decker talk 17:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- McQueen family ( | 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 is surplus to requirements. The scope of the article is null. While they are an established fictional family, what is the need for a Wikipedia page as a collective when all mentioned characters in the article have their own articles which are sourced etc. This is repetitive and there is nothing unique here that cannot or already isn't covered in the articles existing separately. Also it is not broad in coverage, there is no real world aspect - this is fancruft. Rain the 1 10:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I know this page has issues and I've been trying to keep it accurate but it's hard to do on my own instead of trying to get the page shut down why not help me? You are saying why is there need for a page it tells people about the family history and if there isn't any point in having that page surely there's no point in having the Cunningham family or the Osbornes? Please don't do this just help me! User:Ozzykins97 User talk: Ozzykins97 08:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you going to answer me or ignore me? @ User talk:Raintheone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzykins97 ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Ozzykins if you had checked @ Raintheone:'s contributions you would see that they've not been online in nearly 2 days. They are not ignoring you they haven't seen the message. With regards to the AFD there is no point to an article that just duplicates what is covered in other articles 5 albert square ( talk) 01:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you watch hollyoaks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzykins97 ( talk • contribs) 08:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
So I can't do anything to stop it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzykins97 ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- You have had your say and voiced your opinion, so you have done something. Rain the 1 23:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Articles like this have been accepted on Wikipedia. See Category:Soap opera families. -- Stan2525 ( talk) 10:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - WP:Otherstuffexists CommanderLinx ( talk) 11:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:IAR. I know some people object to using IAR in deletion discussions, but I think it's important in a situation like this to have some common sense. Wikipedia is full of fancruft articles that by numerous formal criteria deserve to be deleted. However, getting rid of them is neither possible nor desirable. Like it or not, this sort of thing is part of Wikipedia now, and the only effect of deleting an article such as this would be to pointlessly interfere with the editors who produce this sort of material and the readers who consume it. If you were proposing forking all the articles on TV series over to a new sister project? Maybe. But randomly deleting articles on TV characters just for the sake of following the rules to the letter? No. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 21:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge. This should be kept or merged into List of Hollyoaks characters. At first glance, the nomination seems to have merit. The article currently reproduces significant content from existing articles and is extremely week on references. But at least two major issues come up with regard to this AfD. First is the relationship between this article and the ones it duplicates content from. Second is whether the subject merits and article on Wikipedia. The "McQueen family" seems to be a subset of characters from Hollyoaks. Wikipedia allows for sections of an article to be split, although I'm uncertain whether the Hollyoaks article has reached a size that would make it appropriate in this instance, and it still might do so. On the second issue, a quick WP:Before check yields far more results for the McQueen family than I am able/willing to go through right now. Many of these appear to be reliable and independent sources with depth of coverage, but it is not clear if they should be considered separately applicable to the McQueen family from the show. The article should be cleaned up and otherwise improved, but not deleted. Becky Sayles ( talk) 19:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc 21 19:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep If the connection is more than accidental, its a reasonable grouping for a combination article, and provides a place for the listing of the lessn otable members who may not be worth a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 17 November 2014 (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 keep. j⚛e decker talk 17:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- McQueen family ( | 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 is surplus to requirements. The scope of the article is null. While they are an established fictional family, what is the need for a Wikipedia page as a collective when all mentioned characters in the article have their own articles which are sourced etc. This is repetitive and there is nothing unique here that cannot or already isn't covered in the articles existing separately. Also it is not broad in coverage, there is no real world aspect - this is fancruft. Rain the 1 10:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I know this page has issues and I've been trying to keep it accurate but it's hard to do on my own instead of trying to get the page shut down why not help me? You are saying why is there need for a page it tells people about the family history and if there isn't any point in having that page surely there's no point in having the Cunningham family or the Osbornes? Please don't do this just help me! User:Ozzykins97 User talk: Ozzykins97 08:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you going to answer me or ignore me? @ User talk:Raintheone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzykins97 ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Ozzykins if you had checked @ Raintheone:'s contributions you would see that they've not been online in nearly 2 days. They are not ignoring you they haven't seen the message. With regards to the AFD there is no point to an article that just duplicates what is covered in other articles 5 albert square ( talk) 01:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you watch hollyoaks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzykins97 ( talk • contribs) 08:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
So I can't do anything to stop it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzykins97 ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- You have had your say and voiced your opinion, so you have done something. Rain the 1 23:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Articles like this have been accepted on Wikipedia. See Category:Soap opera families. -- Stan2525 ( talk) 10:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - WP:Otherstuffexists CommanderLinx ( talk) 11:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:IAR. I know some people object to using IAR in deletion discussions, but I think it's important in a situation like this to have some common sense. Wikipedia is full of fancruft articles that by numerous formal criteria deserve to be deleted. However, getting rid of them is neither possible nor desirable. Like it or not, this sort of thing is part of Wikipedia now, and the only effect of deleting an article such as this would be to pointlessly interfere with the editors who produce this sort of material and the readers who consume it. If you were proposing forking all the articles on TV series over to a new sister project? Maybe. But randomly deleting articles on TV characters just for the sake of following the rules to the letter? No. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 21:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge. This should be kept or merged into List of Hollyoaks characters. At first glance, the nomination seems to have merit. The article currently reproduces significant content from existing articles and is extremely week on references. But at least two major issues come up with regard to this AfD. First is the relationship between this article and the ones it duplicates content from. Second is whether the subject merits and article on Wikipedia. The "McQueen family" seems to be a subset of characters from Hollyoaks. Wikipedia allows for sections of an article to be split, although I'm uncertain whether the Hollyoaks article has reached a size that would make it appropriate in this instance, and it still might do so. On the second issue, a quick WP:Before check yields far more results for the McQueen family than I am able/willing to go through right now. Many of these appear to be reliable and independent sources with depth of coverage, but it is not clear if they should be considered separately applicable to the McQueen family from the show. The article should be cleaned up and otherwise improved, but not deleted. Becky Sayles ( talk) 19:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc 21 19:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep If the connection is more than accidental, its a reasonable grouping for a combination article, and provides a place for the listing of the lessn otable members who may not be worth a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 17 November 2014 (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.