Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Births, Marriages and Deaths in Coronation Street

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 no consensus. Mere suggestions are valid, but even still there's no consensus to delete right now (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Births, Marriages and Deaths in Coronation Street

Non-notable fancruft. This is a long list of incidental events that should probably be on a fan site, not here. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful list of notable events in a very notable TV show —G716 <^T·_C> 00:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're contesting the deletion on the grounds that it's useful? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's wrong with being useful? The link you give is to an essay, i.e. an opinion piece that hasn't gained consensus either for or against. I would have thought that usefulness, when it helps our readers find encyclopedic information, is exactly what we should be striving for. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes —G716 <^T·_C> 23:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly unverified to any reliable sources and consisting entirely of plot from an in-universe perspective. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All that is needed is to give the episode where the event takes place, and then its verified. The primary sources is sufficient. Considering the very great importance this series seems to have, an article like this is appropriate--and a list has merely to be useful. DGG (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That "primary sources [are] sufficient" seems to contradict the Notability guideline, which (in at nutshell) says that evidence of having "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" denotes that the subject warrants a stand-alone article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your claim above was about verifiability, not notability, so DGG's response was correct - primary sources are fine for verifying uncontroversial factual information. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Normally, I'd go for delete as a plot summary article, and the only doubt over this one is how major Coronation Street is as part of UK TV. The information appears to have been lifted from these pages, and you could easily link to this from one of the other Corrie articles. What the Wikipedia version does that the corrie.net version doesn't is provide Wikilinks. Whether that's enough to be worth a Wikipedia article is something I'll leave for others to decide. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as notability goes, here is some evidence to show that the topic of births, marriages and deaths is discussed by secondary sources as an important part of Coronation Street: [1][2][3][4][5]. Verifiability of the individual births, marriages and deaths is, as DGG points out, taken care of by the episodes themselves as primary sources. Chris is correct in saying that this information is available elsewhere, but if that was a reason for deletion then Wikipedia would have no reason for existing. The whole point of policies on verifiability and no original research is that we only publish information that is available elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and pd_THOR, but mainly for being in-universe. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until there are full lists of episodes by season, then merge The assertions to delete are the other side of instruction creep; the WP rule Telephone game. See that something is -like- an example of a WP rule, pick up the rule and run as far as you can with it. In-universe perspective of a list? Laughable. Other Coronation Street articles? Name two (Name [coronation street character] doesn't count). "How major"? The first entry is an episode from 1961. The original 'stories'. I wanted to merge this article with lists of episodes of Coronation Street, but it appears there are none. A bedrock series in British television, that deserves far more from WP. Anarchangel (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2009 (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.