Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

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 merge‎ to List of Hollyoaks characters. There is no appetite for deletion, but the arguments against a merger are quite weak. LISTN has been asserted but no evidence provided for it; I also struggle to see how LISTN would be met independent of the parent list, which is indeed obviously notable. Size concerns are a strong argument, but given that this article is far larger than the parent, I don't see how that's a strong argument either. As an aside, I noticed there appear to be lists for individual years as well; I suggest discussing the best way to handle these also. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Hollyoaks characters[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of former Hollyoaks characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not meet WP:NLIST. It should be either deleted (due to having no references) or mercifully merged to List of Hollyoaks characters if we AGF that it is correct. Side note: this kind of split is not easy to maintain (did the author consider the concept of recurring/returning characters...?). We probably need to do the same with everything else in Category:Lists of former characters. PS. Consider that eventually each show will finish and then this division will be even more pointless then it is now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been living under a rock Piotrus. What do you think WikiProject soap operas have been doing for the past sixteen years? Chewing corn for gummy parrots. Maybe you haven't seen these pages because you've chosen not to poke your nose into passionate soap editors work. So Piotrus.. **** off and make a cup of tea 2A00:23EE:11F8:56DF:1126:6214:8C44:152E (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand disagreeing with Piotrus' opinion, but please try to keep it civil in regards to the discussion. Yelling at people isn't going to advance this discussion further. Pokelego999 (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested. Anything can be presumed sourcable to primary sources to meet V, anyone can tag or remove anything they doubt, just like always. I agree that 'former character' lists are something that should be deprecated and merged into character lists in general due to the nom's concerns. Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the category, these seem to be associated with long-running UK shows. Is there a relevant Wikiproject that might become involved? Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They're all UK and Australian soap operas – there is WikiProject Soap Operas, which I am a participant of. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That, coupled with anon's abusive comment above, does help to explain the sudden pile on of low quality keep votes from folks not usually seen at AfDs. Oh well, I am sure the closer will be able to deal with this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested by nom. Agree with above concerns. —siroχo 07:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PERNOM... – Meena • 10:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – First of all, these lists are easy to maintain, and the author did not do anything wrong. If a character is recurring, they stay on the present list unless a departure has been confirmed and taken place. If a character returns they are moved back to the present characters list. The reasons that these are separated is because soap opera character lists are huge as soap operas have huge casts (due to airing up to 6 episodes a week) and have been around for decades (nearly 63 years in Coronation Street's case). And yes, sourcing is a problem as in the past sources were not used in character lists at all (they are now in the present ones) but we are slowly working our way through it. I and a few other editors would likely be able to source at least half of it by the end of this AFD. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The list is about 3100 words right now, almost entirely in tables. That would fit pretty comfortably in List of Hollyoaks characters § Former characters.
    However, this could also be primarily a minor naming/organization issue. Here's an alternative that might clear that up with very little hassle or change. We could move this to List of Hollyoaks characters, add a top section that links to a Main list of List of current Hollyoaks characters which would now have the content for the current list of characters. I think that would meet basically all the WP:SAL policies. —siroχo 09:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. If someone really thinks this is useful, subsections solve this simply. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as per the reasons that user:DaniloDaysOfOurLives gave above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:KEEPER... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, then strong keep as if the list is merged with the main character list page, then that article would be too long. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PLENTY... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The sources for said characters are on the individual pages or List of characters for that year. Ridiculous nomination and needs a speedy close. User:Liz come and close this travesty of a nomination please.2A00:23EE:19F8:1387:E139:4143:4FD3:1019 (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. there is zero reason why this should be its own article, instead of a subsection. DrowssapSMM (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the sheer size of this list combined with the list of current characters is too much to navigate through comfortably for one article. – Meena • 14:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment there are numerous news articles about former characters that demonstrate that the former list meets LISTN. People who claim that it is a non-notable list are perhaps not doing their research. Google search for 'past Hollyoaks characters' and you will find many, many articles documenting specific characters that have left, why they left, etc. There's a lot of laziness going on throughout this discussion with the 'agree per nom/NLIST' but I don't see a whole lot of WP:BEFORE going on. – Meena • 22:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to list them? I googled and did not find anything that looks particularly useful. There are sources to show that List of Hollyoaks characters - one list - is reasonable. That's it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above XxLuckyCxX (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters#Former characters. This topic does not meet LISTN, and is not large enough to warrant a split. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments above. livelikemusic (TALK!) 02:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First, some folks may be confused with regard to what AfD is - a merge is a perfectly fine outcome. Second, interested editors may be interested in merge proposals at Talk:List_of_Emmerdale_characters#Merge_from_List_of_former_Emmerdale_characters, Talk:List_of_EastEnders_characters#Merge_from_List_of_former_EastEnders_characters, Talk:List_of_Doctors_characters#Merge_from_List_of_former_Doctors_characters, Talk:List_of_Coronation_Street_characters#Merge_from_List_of_former_Coronation_Street_characters, Talk:List_of_Home_and_Away_characters#Merge_from_List_of_former_Home_and_Away_characters and Talk:List_of_Neighbours_characters#Merge_from_List_of_former_Neighbours_characters. Most of the main articles here are very short, so size considerations are an issue (but see also WP:PLENTY). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above points. It really would not take much to spruce up these articles - more references (as seen in the Neighbours article) and an expanded lead. I also want to note that rather than 7 different discussions, it would have been more appropriate to have one central discussion at WP:SOAPS. Soaper1234 - talk 20:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified for 17.78 years. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have begun sourcing the page - it is a work in process but I will be able to get it complete within a few weeks at most. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do no delete. I would prefer to keep this but a merge could be possible, keeping current and former characters separate. The list can be fully sourced with a little effort and it is not difficult to maintain since there are several dedicated soap opera fans who edit these articles as well as a dedicated WikiProject. I would worry however that a merge might make it harder to navigate the list, given the number of subsections in both articles. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 12:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per QuicoleJR Dawid2009 (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It needs sourcing. I would hope some effort to source it would be made if the outcome of this AFD is to keep. It has been unsourced for too long. But that does not mean simply deleting it is the better option. A long-running television series with millions of viewers and at times that has been broadcast worldwide is notable. It may not be as high-brow as some lists, but it is valid.Rain the 1 17:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge - WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I would say delete, due to literally having no new information, but I believe a merge to List of Hollyoaks characters would be more reasonable. Also, we should merge all of the "List of Hollyoaks characters by year of introduction lists" as they seem all very trivial. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - I have begun sourcing the page. So far I have only done the first section ("Last appeared in 2023") but by the end of tomorrow I can get 2022, 2021 and 2020 done, and I would be able to get the 2010s done over the weekend too. The sources demonstrate its notability and I will continue to improve the page.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2023 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_former_Hollyoaks_characters