Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logan 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Logan Family

Logan Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Just a list of names from a soap opera. Information already exists in B&B and in individual fictional characters articles. This article contains no real world information, no sources, no references, no media coverage. Magioladitis (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as a speedy-merge target for such articles as Hope Logan, Stephen Logan, Beth Logan etc. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This is the sort of article we ought to have, as a suitable place to merge articles into that can not justifiably stand on their own. An organization by family is often the clearest way to deal with these, not a single alphabetic sequence. Removing these combination articles is an intermediate step in eliminating discussion of characters:first reduce them to a paragraph in the main article, then a bare list in the main article, then remove even that because it doesn't say anything any more. Not saying that is necessarily the intention here, but its the usual result. DGG (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. SMSpivey (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So you admit that the "Logan family" article won't discuss about this fictional family as a fictional element with real world importance but will be "just a list of names from a soap opera" that will serve as the place to merge character articles. And that makes you wonder: Who is member of this family? "Ridge Forrester" because he was married to some episodes with a Logan? "Nick Marone" for the same reason until the writers decide that he has to divorce to give new excitement to the show? As far as I see in the list "the fifth generation" doesn't even have "Logan" as surname. To conclude, to divide characters based in parts of the plot is not a good idea. IMO, list of characters have to keep in the alphabetized way. I locate here the same problem as I saw in some CfD's for categories for fictional people. Not the same rules imply for real and fictional people. Things change in B&B according to a plot and there is not "future", "past" and "presend". Things have to be stated independently of time and with real world perspective. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• strong keep per DGG, Sgeureka, strong disagree with merging characters though. Ikip (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per sg and get rid of (i.e. merge) the fancrufty articles on all the individual characters to this page. I agree with DGG that this represents a happy middle ground between providing content of fictional topics and fancruft overload. Eusebeus (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Please, as per WP:ITSCRUFT (applies to AfDs) and WP:NOCRUFT (in general) please don't call other editors contributions cruft. Ikip (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong DeleteThere has been no attempt to establish notability in this article and the information in it can be found elsewhere. DGG said this is "This is the sort of article we ought to have, as a suitable place to merge articles into that can not justifiably stand on their own" but the fact is there are two other articles that serve that very purpose, Current characters of The Bold and the Beautiful and List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters. Those articles as well as the articles of each of the individual characters listed in this article, make the Logan family redundant and unnecessary.Rocksey (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Then shouldn't a merge template be just as effective, and much less disruptive? Ikip (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note to closing administrator This is a conversation about deleting Logan Family, not merging unrelated articles. If editors want to merge these articles, please follow standard merge procedure. Ikip (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to either Current characters of The Bold and the Beautiful (if they are current) or The Bold and the Beautiful. Some of this could be merged into the redirect target; however, this subject matter is already adequately covered in the Current characters article, and all Logan Family adds is unsourced WP:PLOT of no demonstrated notability, in a level of detail excessive for an encyclopedia. So a delete would be fine. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Per DGG. -- Banjeboi 03:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep c'mon, with (a) the sheer length and popularity of the soap...and it will have detailed commentary...somewhere in the glossy mags section of the newsagent or bookstore. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip tried to give recently some proof that "Spectra fashions" has been covered by third party sources. The result was some references to the plot in a book for B&B. I think the result will be the same here. I have no evidence that Logan family was every discussed independently from B&B. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Magioladitis I don't know if they show this program where you are but in Anglophone countries it is very popular. From experience with other soap operas there are a profusion of commentaries and features in numerous women's magazines etc. Yes there will be a stack of secondary sources, but no I won't go find them as it would bore the bejeezus out of me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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.