Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soprano crime family

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 redirect to List of characters from The Sopranos in the Soprano crime family. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soprano crime family

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page serving entirely as a massive plot summary, failing WP:PLOT and MOS:PLOT, already found at Sopranos episode articles. Moreover, the characters/cast lists are redundant with an already more concise List of characters from The Sopranos in the Soprano crime family. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I offer little to reduce paper and discard excess Shad in Net 01:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shad Innet (talk • contribs)
- And what exactly does that mean? -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One cannot find the article innocently, because there was no Soprano crime family (I'm thinking of lesbian opera singers adopting children and training them up in crime). This article duplicates existing material in The Sopranos and otherwise goes into fanboi detail about the mythical mafiosi of David Chase's show. This crime family is not notable because it is not real. The show is notable, but it has an article. Hithladaeus (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We used to have scads of these articles in the distant past where a fictional world was related in a real-world style. That time passed a long time ago and although the writing is creative and I would have kept it in the past, it belongs not here, but somewhere else like a Sopranopedia Wikia or something of that ilk. Nate • (chatter) 10:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.357 magnum Delete: Holy crap, this isn't a Wikipedia article, this is the opening draft for a published fictional concordance, and I wish the author well in getting David Chase to sign off on getting it into print. It just doesn't belong HERE. Screamingly OR, relatively unsourced, blows holes through MOS:PLOT. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article details the most prominent fictional faction from an enormously culturally influential TV series. Even though the page does have flaws in its widespread in-fictional-universe-style section presentation, those who are knowledgeable about the subject matter, know that this faction had its influence to other works of art or artists and was notably reviewed by the media since the series debut to even today. Notable fictional factions are legitimate articles, and I would compare them to notable fictional character articles. Should you delete The Avengers or Gondor articles in that vein as well? Yes, this article needs a lot of work, it needs sections about is its real-world notability and artistic influence, and of course sources(i.e. expansion), but not snap and mindless outright deletion. --TheBearPaw (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The appropriate "fictional character article" is List of characters from The Sopranos in the Soprano crime family, which should be improved and referenced. This article, however, is just one long plot summary, directly violating the letter and spirit of WP:PLOT. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why is the other article the "appropriate one" to keep. I disagree. These two are different articles, one detailing and listing the individual members, that page is intricately linked to the various plot articles about the series which mention the characters. While the Soprano crime family article is, and should be, about the fictional history and real-life notability and influences of the entire fictional faction. Combining the two would create a page which would be too large to comfortably navigate, hence it is only in Wikipedia style to separate even overall largely the same subject into separate articles. Additionally, your emphasized WP:PLOT policy only says that fiction should be discussed in a "concise" way, but nowhere does it say that it should not be discussed at all (i.e. your proposed outright deletion of the whole article). You can argue about cutting down excessive plot details if you like (which is an entirely different discussion) when talking about individual sections but not go about removing the whole article from existence. The whole article deletion is solely a question of notability, which you yourself below admit is present for this fictional faction. Stimulate the user addition of reception and significance sections with templates calling for that, but not threaten to bulldoze the plot summary scaffolding, because it is, and legally should be, a legitimate part of the article. --TheBearPaw (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are certain types of articles that are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" has nothing to do with notability, but it's still a policy that prohibits dictionary entries. WP:NOTPLOT is a policy prohibiting articles that are solely plot summaries, regardless of notability. This article is a perfect example of a violation of that policy. A plot summary isn't "part" of the article- it's the entire article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Famous groups of people who are the leading plot element in famous fictions are notable. There ought to be abundant literature. There's a peculiar tendency in WP to include information about even minimally notable shows, and not give proper coverage to the important. Naturally, due care needs to be taken to make it clear they are fictional. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything you've written is true. The characters are certainly notable. That's why it's a good thing we have List of characters from The Sopranos in the Soprano crime family as well as the dozens of character articles. The article up for discussion is exactly what WP:PLOT addresses and forbids. The entire article is a plot summary. Nothing you or the others who voted 'keep' have addressed that policy. If care should be taken to improve anything, it should be the 'List of characters...' article, which is more appropriate. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 12:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant, duplicating existing material and per WP:Plot. Kierzek (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The article certainly does not "duplicate material" from other articles, even if looking at its criticized plot sections. For example, sections about the faction's past, such as the "Formation" or "Unrest of '83" sections, are unique plot details that were not pulled from any episode articles but dedicatedly written by users from the whole series canon for this specific article only. Therefore your argument of redundancy is incorrect. --TheBearPaw (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The essential notability of the material here does not seem in dispute — the nomination just asserts that some other page has a better structure for presenting the material. I don't agree with that as this is organised more functionally and historically rather than alphabetically, which helps the reader to understand it better. In any case, per WP:NOTPAPER and WP:CLN, there's no reason that we can't do it in a variety of ways. Andrew D. (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a notability or formatting issue. The article is redundant with character/episode articles and fails WP:PLOT, a policy here which explicitly forbids summary-only articles like this one. Nothing you said has addressed WP:PLOT. The other article is sufficient. -- Wikipedical (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:PLOT is not relevant to deletion as its point is that we should do more than just report plot details. The page in question fulfils this requirement by, for example, pointing out the parallels with the DeCavalcante crime family. It is better for this purpose than List of characters from The Sopranos in the Soprano crime family, which is the page that you prefer. If we had to choose between the pages then I'd rather have this one. But the point of our policy WP:NOTPAPER is that we don't have to choose. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOTPLOT is a policy that forbids articles that are solely plot summaries. It is not a suggestion. We have one article that is consistent with Category:Lists of American television series characters and a similar and redundant one that fails policy. Claiming that the article passes WP:NOTPLOT because of one sentence is a misreading of that policy and would deem it pointless entirely. This article is a prime example of a WP:NOTPLOT violation. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consists only of in-universe plot summary, in violation of WP:NOTPLOT, a policy. Sandstein 07:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a plot summary, and as repeated material that could be summarized in The Sopranos. Aerospeed (Talk) 16:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters from The Sopranos in the Soprano crime family. This article is essentially redundant and a plot summary; while I'm not a fan of having massive plot summaries in Wikipedia if we're going to do it we should at least stick to one article per topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:08, 19 July 2015 (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.