Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Cropper

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. John254 00:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Cropper

Roy Cropper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article consists entirely of plot summary without real-world context or analysis, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT, and does not have secondary sources to establish notability per WP:FICT. Google returns only non-WP:RS fansites, blogs, and the like which indicates notability criteria of significant coverage from relaible, secondary sources cannot be met no matter what. I both tagged the article and raised my concerns on the talk page over a month ago and bumped my concerns a week ago, yet the article has remained unimproved so I am bringing it to AFD. Doctorfluffy (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - Notable soap character. All the other current Corrie characters have articles. It just needs a bit of a cleanup. D.M.N. (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. You've !voted speedy keep; which particular clause of WP:SK do you think applies?
    I was wrong on that one, maybe its just Keep. D.M.N. (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. You say it's notable, but there are no sources on the article, none have been added since I noted my concerns on the talk page, and you have provided none here. Reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject are necessary to show this article passes WP:N or WP:FICT.
    You left a comment on the talkpage (which no one probably looks on); you never notified WP:SOAPS about your concerns; so the chances of anyone looking on there are zero. As for sources: [1]; [2]; [3] D.M.N. (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Other characters are irrelevant, see WP:OTHERSTUFF.
    2. It's more than "just a bit of cleanup". In order to not violate WP:NOT#PLOT, virtually the entire article would need to be removed. In additon, verifiable (per WP:V) real-world world context, analysis, or significance would need to be added, which is difficult to do without sources.
    Rewritten, yes. D.M.N. (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a lot easier to read this discussion if we keep it as a single thread. Inserting comments inside my comment block also makes replying difficult.
    You provided three sources. The first does not appear to devote significant coverage per WP:N to Roy Cropper himself, but is rather a synopsis of an upcoming plot twist. The second is from a fansite and is likely not considered reliable per WP:SOURCES. The third is from the official website and, as such, is not independent of the subject per WP:N. I think I actually came across all three of these myself when googling and they were not enough to deter my concerns. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as an interim measure I have added three four external links to the article which support notability. Obviously the quality of the article is still horrible, but I believe the notability concerns are now addressed ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One can tell from reading the article that recent effort has been made to “fix it up.” While more effort may be required, surely it now at least meets a minimum standard for keeping. Moreover, while the character of Roy Cropper may be less notable now, at other times in the 40-year history of Coronation Street, his character has been front-and-center. For instance:
  • Roy meets and falls in love with Hayley, Corrie’s transgendered character
  • Roy weds Hayley
  • Tracy Barlow attempts to “sell” her daughter to Roy and Hayley
  • Roy and Hayley’s attempted rehabilitation of Becky Granger
If the characters with which this character’s storylines are interwoven merit their own individual articles (e.g., Hayley, Tracy, Amy, and Becky), then it cannot be logically argued that a character sharing storylines with them does not merit his own individual article. Further, and to reiterate, just because a character's storyline occasionally gets moved to a backburner, that character's notability is not diminshed, especially when that character has been a steady, regular character whose storylines often propel him to the frontburner. SpikeToronto (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I dont know how anyone can say that a character who has run nearly 13 years, in the highest rated UK tv programme, is not notable. Clearly they dont know anything about British popular culture, the character or the programme. The article needs rewriting and sourcing, but that's not grounds for deletion, it should be improved. It clearly has the potential to be more than just plot summary as many of the character's storylines had significant real world impact. He married a transsexual for one, which got huge amounts of coverage. It was widely reported that the storyline prompted UK MPs to try and change the law for transsexual marriage and improve civil rights:"tabled a House of Commons motion, urging ministers to give trans-sexuals full civil rights, including being allowed to marry....The political move follows the screen heartache of Hayley, formerly Harold, who fears she will never be able to marry her boyfriend Roy Cropper."[4][5]

Here's some other sources from a quick search proving notability, which anyone willing to improve this article can use.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]Gungadin♦ 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Notability is independent of the subject matter. I shouldn't need to be familiar with British popular culture or the program to see why the character is notable. All that matters is that the topic has received substancial coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. See the next point.
    2. Many of the sources provided, by you and others, are inadequate: either they are not reliable (fansites, blogs, some op eds), not independent (the official website of the show), or only provide passing mention (focus is on the plot or the show in general, not the character specifically). Some of them may be acceptable, but I didn't look at all of them closely.
    3. Even if proper sourcing can be established, the entire article still completely fails WP:NOT#PLOT, which is a serious problem. The ridiculously long plot summary to be condensed to a paragraph or two and sourced real-world context, analysis, and significance needs to be added. Your points about his marriage to a transexual seem like reasonable additions.
    Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said, "All that matters is that the topic has received substantial coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject", which is exactly what the sources I have provided have shown. Not one of those is a fan site, and all are secondary. They are from British National newspapers or independent news sites like BBC News, none of which are connected in any way to Coronation Street, or ITV. Most, if not all, provide significant coverage, and they all mention the character specifically. This was just a brief search anyway, there will be tons more out there.
You said "Some of them may be acceptable, but I didn't look at all of them closely." Well if you havent looked at the sources then I dont think it's fair to dismiss them by saying "Many of the sources provided, by you and others, are inadequate".
I completely agree the plot needs reducing and a rewrite is definitely in order, but that doesnt mean it should be deleted. At Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) it says "The article is kept if the subject has received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources and this coverage is explicitly referenced in the deletion discussion or is used to add real-world content to the article. Articles about fictional topics that are notable should be given time to develop." Therefore, this article should definitely be kept. It can easily be turned around with a little time and effort, look at this featured UK soap article, Pauline Fowler, for an example of what can be done with soap characters. Editors can include sourced commentary, real world impact, ratings, quotes and comments from interviews with the actor (personality of character, how he plays him etc), recpetion - popularity and criticsm. Gungadin♦ 21:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the sources you provided do not devote substantial coverage to the character of Roy Cropper himself. As they are numbered above:
    (4) Passing mention - Article is about the politics of transexual marriage and merely uses Roy Cropper as an example. Likely more suitable for usage in the article on the series itself.
    (5) Similar to #4, but however focuses more on Hayley Cropper. More suited for her article than his.
    (6) Likely a reliable source, but does little more than to outline elements of the plot. Focus is more the plot than Roy himself, provides little or no real world context.
    (7) Written by a professional critic, but on her blog. I don't know if that qualifies as reliable. Only a portion of it is about Roy and it provides little real-world analysis.
    (8) Possibly valid. Ian Hyland appears to be a professional critic, but the article doesn't say much.
    (9) Duplicate of #7.
    (10) Passing mention - focus is on the show itself.
    (11) Similar to #6. Merely outlines elements of the plot.
    (12) Similar to #6. Merely outlines elements of the plot.
    (13) Similar to #6. Merely outlines elements of the plot.
    (14) Similar to #6. Merely outlines elements of the plot.
    (15) Article is about the actor who potrays Roy, not about Roy Cropper himself.
    (16) Similar to #6. Merely verifies elements of the plot.
    (17) Provides some real-world context for Roy, but is more about the politics of environmental friendliness. Not sure if it counts as substancial coverage.
    (18) Essentially a promo for an upcoming episode. Insignificant coverage.
    (19) Essentially a promo for an upcoming episode. Insignificant coverage.
    (20) Essentially a promo for an upcoming episode. Insignificant coverage.
    (21) Similar to #5. Focuses more on Hayley. Does little more than to outline the plot.
    (22) Similar to #6. Merely outlines elements of the plot.
    Taken as a whole, these sources are marginal. They do very little to establish the notability of Roy Cropper himself. Prior to this AFD, I didn't doubt that he exists and that the show is popular, but that doesn't necessarily make him notable.
    I don't see how the two statements contradict each other. Many of the sources are inadequate, but I didn't look at all of them closely at the time I had made the statement. Simple enough.
    I've seen this exact situation in 100s of AFDs. Editors frequently opine about how important a character may be during the AFD discussion and may sway the closing admin, but then the article remains unchanged for months afterwards and it gets nominated again in a few months. I'm not saying the article is impossible to fix, but there is still no evidence that it can be. Some of the sources you provided are okay (read: not great), but I don't know if they add enough to verify notability. And once again, I'll point out that 90% of the current needs to go by WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are just wikilawyering with regard to these sources, claiming that they do not prove notability, as you are keen for this page to be deleted. Precisely what kind of sources would you deem acceptable? Comb through every article on wikipedia and you could argue that the majority of sources should not be used because they do not focus entirely on a certain aspect of 'this and that'. Look at featured article Jabba the Hutt, for instance. A lot of those sources are primary and about Star Wars in general, not Jabba the Hut specifically. Does that make them inadequate sources in your opinion?

The fact that a soap opera plot is affecting real world issues such as transexual marriage, as shown in sources 4 & 5, should indicate that the subject is notable in itself. Saying that sources only focus on the character's storylines is another flawed argument. Storylines define a character, they have no character development without them; therefore, discussing a character's storylines is discussing a character. All the sources can be used collectively in the article to provide critical commentary and real world info, reception etc. It has been shown that the character has received adequate cover from a large number of media sources and editors should be given the opportunity to improve the article. There is no deadline on wikipedia, and predicting alterations (or lack of) to this article, based on prior AFDs you've contributed to, is not a valid argument for deletion. It's just crystal ballery.Gungadin♦ 23:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not wikilawyering, but rather my interpretation of the sources you provided. The point of an AFD is to engender discussion and come to a consensus, usually involving the set policies and guidelines. Perhaps my intepretation of those policies is stricter than yours, but it should be clear that I am not acting against their spirit. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I do strive to ensure the quality of Wikipedia on the whole and I honestly believe this subject is of dubious notability.
I don't know how to define an acceptable source in language any plainer than how the policies are written. I've linked to them above in a few places. As a good reference though, Wikipedia:Waf#Secondary_information has a decent list of typical secondary sources for fiction. From those examples, I would think it's clear that a simple regurgitation of the plot, even from a reliable publication, is not a good source of secondary information.
You're right - storyline and the character him/herself are essentially one and the same. In fact, that's precisely why mere plot information does not indicate notability and why secondary sources are needed to provide context and analysis.
Although I can see your viewpoint, I think you're looking at WP:DEADLINE from the wrong perspective. If you read it more closely, you'll see it's mostly about waiting until you have a quality article and ensuring the core policies are met before submission to Wikipedia; it's not about an unlimited grace period for articles that fail policy. Note, the Roy Cropper article was created without any establishment of its significance. Luckily though, WP:DEADLINE is only an essay, which generally won't receive as much weight as the official policies or guidelines.
Also, for future discussions, you've misused WP:CRYSTAL. It is applicable only to information in the encyclopedia (mainspace) itself to facilitate compliance with WP:V. I am "allowed", so to speak, to speculate however I want in AFDs. Doctorfluffy (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip, but I dont feel that I have used crystal ballery incorrectly. I'm aware how the term is used in the encyclopedia, and you'll notice I did not link to WP:CRYSTAL. Seeing/predicting the future is exactly what crystal ballery is, and this is what you are doing when you claim this article wont be improved. You don't know this, and guesswork should not be used as an argument for deletion. I see your point about WP:DEADLINE, this one's clearly more applicable Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built.
I don't watch this show much, so i'm not the best person to do the work here, but I have the afternoon off work, so I will see if I can come up with some improvements. No point in all talk and no action, best way to prove you wrong is to show you :) Gungadin♦ 14:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, you didn't mention WP:CRYSTAL specifically. I'm sorry I put words in your mouth.
Indeed, improving the article would be the best way to prove me wrong. Good luck. Doctorfluffy (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ive done some work adding real world stuff. All the stuff under "Character creation and development" is what ive included. I will continue to do more when time permits, but can you see now that this could become quite a good article if allowed to develop?Gungadin♦ 23:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Once more I confess to not knowing about the subject except from this article. The information there shows that it is a major character is what is clearly regarded as a major work of fiction, which is enough for notability. that the material is actually sourced to a considerable degree makes it evident that opposition must, AGF, be based on a desire to restrict fictional coverage to he bare facts of publication and distribution--the least important things about fiction. Let each concentrate on improving the articles that interest them. DGG (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with reservations to consider appropriate measures (e.g. merge, transwiki, expand) outside of AfD. I don't know this character, but Pauline Fowler from a similar(?) British series shows what can be achieved with such an article. – sgeureka t•c 12:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep much newspaper material online is reduced. I am sure if I was in the UK and liked Coronation Street enough I could find enough weekly mags with 3rd party material in them. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 11 January 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roy_Cropper&oldid=1136469139"