Deletion of Waterloo Road Comprehensive (2nd nomination)

Comment: I'll repost what I had to say at the previous AfD, as the same issues apply. First of all, the school itself is not |notable by our standards as it hasn't been the subject of more-than-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party sources.  Furthermore, much of this material is unreferenced, going against our policy on |verification.  Going beyond verification, this also appears to be nothing but a |synthesis of OT#PLOT|plot-related material without any actual analysis from a |real-world perspective.  Wikipedia isn't a place to write plot summaries about minor and nonnotable elements of fiction
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:NOT||WP:INUNIVERSE)

Comment: I have never seen the show, so I can't really make a keep/delete statement. However, if I was familiar with the series, I would have to use an argument that unfortunately smacks of  by comparing this two American shows, ''Barney Miller'' and ''Seinfeld''. In the former, the squadroom in the 12th precinct is fundamentally the only set used on the show. As such, it is the show, and no separate article should exist as it can not be extricated from the show itself. OTOH, Monk's Cafe is a part of Seinfeld, and I believe it has received secondary coverage as a component of the show. It is not the primary location for that series, but a major location that has served as the plot of several episodes. I would support the inclusion of such an article. Bringing this back to the discussion at hand is where my question comes in - is the ''school'' the primary location for the series, or is it a major location? I ask this of people familiar with all three shows mentioned
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: and cleanup as needed.  A major plot element in a major TV series.  As such, it is an appropriate spin-off from the main article to avoid that article becoming too long.  Excessive detail and any  that exists (but keep in mind it isn't OR if it can be sourced to the show) can be removed through normal editing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Excessive detail and any  that exists (but keep in mind it isn't OR if it can be sourced to the show) can be removed through normal editing''" - if this is the case, we won't have much of an article left. Probably about a sentence
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: There is no evidence that this article ''can become'' satisfactory. There is no evidence that this article can ever transcend a mere description of the plot. Although the term "Waterloo Road Comprehensive" appears in many results, they are always referring to plot or casting elements. For instance, the term indeed appears in articles such as http://news.scotsman.com/features/TV-review-Waterloo-Road-.4853938.jp this and http://www.wilmslowexpress.co.uk/news/s/522/522347_sister_act_for_real.html this, but both are rather trivial mentions. The latter contains some useful real-world production context for Waterloo Road (TV series). Can any of the article's editors or the inclusionists cite a specific source that would justify retaining this?There are Waterloo Road (TV series) and List of Waterloo Road episodes for an overview of the plot. We do not need another. I asked on the first AFD, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FWaterloo_Road_Comprehensive&action=historysubmit&diff=303131344&oldid=303130409 "What do you envisage as the improvements you can make?", and no-one took any |effort to reply. I have never seen any edit to this article that has been about anything other than a retelling of the plot. The main Waterloo Road (TV series) is not the best. I advise editors work to get that to some reasonable standard before creating spin-off pages. Perhaps they might take a look at some good television articles, such as ''EastEnders'', to get an idea what needs doing to WR?GaGaOohLaLa is absolutely correct. There will be nothing left if you do strip away the plot material from thios article. That's the problem.The article ''does not'' need ''cleanup''. It needs writing from scratch. As with notability problems, there would hold no prejudice against this being recreated later if it were written properly, '''with''' sources and real-world context
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPROVE)

Comment: as |other crap does, indeed, exist. But to expand that there is nothing on this article outside of the primary sources, all information is taken from plots to episodes or from the official website. And looking at the Chatsworth Estate page I would redirect or delete it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: The Waterloo Road Comprehensive has been covered in-depth in real-world context in multiple reliable sourceshttp://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Waterloo+Road+Comprehensive%22&cf=all as well as in reviewshttp://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Waterloo+Road%22%2C+review&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a.  That the article has sat and not been improved within some arbitrary time is a reason to fix it through cleanup and sourcing, not deletion.  The fact that the authors have not (yet) done so is also not a reason to delete, as Wikipedia |does not demand it be done in some |arbitrary time frame.  If the sense is that the article has too much plot, that's yet another reson for cleanup and editing using the ample available sources, not for deletion. This discussion is about this one article, |not the series or other series elements. As with all reliable sources, a reader must be able to (in principal) check the source themselves to confirm the profferred text. If a reader can read it, watch it, or see it, we do not always expect to have the little things written up in the newspapers. For some non-contentious facts, the primary source (the series) is occasionally acceptable for some simple .  However, as stated above... there IS enough to source this article about a notable element that itself has been documented in Reliable Sources.  Per , "''Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page''", and "''If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.''"  Per Wikipedia:Editing policy|Editing policy offers "''Perfection is not required: |Wikipedia is a work in progress''", and "''|Preserve information: fix problems if you can, flag them if you can't
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT||WP:DEADLINE||WP:WAX||WP:V||WP:DEL||WP:WIP||WP:PRESERVE)