Deletion of Major Emmerdale storylines

Comment: A useful summary for those not fully aware of Emmerdale's storyline history and it is certainly in no way near to being a  . The article, however, could do with more references and it does slant too much towards recent storylines which could dilute somewhat the notion that the article contains information on the soap's biggest storylines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:TVGUIDE)

Comment: Whilst I have historically expressed an interest in Emmerdale articles, I do feel the article in question could do with a cleanup and perhaps trimming. The fundamental purpose should be "major" storylines which is in itself supposedly meant to be notable storylines only. It's also just a single article housing this material, in contrast to other soaps such as Eastenders (which the nominator self-claims to have a vested interest in), which has a separate article per major storyline. If we're getting into the  debate, then we'd have to call into question many sub-articles of every soap that have an article on wikipedia. Essentially, this article separates content that would have otherwise been in the main article, itself justified for inclusion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: or redirect. Currently completely . I don't know if there's a particular good way to cover the overall plot in a way similar to episode or season lists, but this structure doesn't work
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPLOT)

Comment: Violates , which is policy, and mandates that we must not have articles that are only plot summary - whether sourced or not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPLOT)