Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weeds Characters: Hodes, James, and Wilson Families

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 delete. Forked article should likely be reverted to include the material. If anything is lost in this delete, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I'll restore this page so the material can be retrived. v/r - T P 15:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weeds Characters: Hodes, James, and Wilson Families

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

I already proposed the merge ~~but I also understand how wiki works... this info is [i think] straight copied out of the parent article... there's zero reason to break this out.~~ Most television dramas that have a lot of branching character trees and relationships do this, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. The fact that Weeds has a separate character page and episode page, and general page, and I assume other pages, itself, suggests that we have enough coverage. Splitting out pages is one of the chief complaints of rationalinclusionists like myself... and this is a perfect example...this is [again, i am pretty sure, but also lazy] a copy of the preexisting article. Anyone who's read the split criteria would never in their wildest dreams believe his was a useful or reasonable split. I can get more in depth about how bad of a split this is... but I assume the larger community understands what I'm talking about.Shadowjams (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add this one to the list Weeds Characters: Agrestic Area. ~~Apparently this editor is fixated on separating out all of the particular factions in the series' universe.~~ Shadowjams (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've varied from these views slightly, see my comment below. Shadowjams (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Merge sounds reasonable... so why are we here at AfD? Did you try it and get reverted? Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, merge is essentially revert original, delete this page so yeah, AfD seems to be somewhat necessary. Shadowjams (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed splitting the Weeds characters page some time ago. Simply put, there is over 100,000 bytes of information on the page, and it is quite unwieldy. It has steadly grown over time and will continue to grow as I add more detail. (I'm the only one working on it consistantly.) It is also likely that an eighth season will increase the size of the show's universe. Also, it's not just the character page that is splitting up. The episode page for Weeds was recently broken up with one page for each season.

Quoting Shadowjams "Anyone who's read the split criteria would never in their wildest dreams believe his was a useful or reasonable split." My reply: Go back and re-read. According to the guidelines set down by WP:Split, any page with over readable prose of over 100KB "almost certainly should be divided."

Shadowjams asserts that "The fact that Weeds has a separate character page and episode page, and general page, and I assume other pages, itself, suggests [that] we have enough coverage." However, what is the standard for determining the level of coverage needed? Determining that standard requires an understanding of the subject matter under consideration and the current state of the subject's article(s). The editors on the Weeds pages have been working on this for some time now. I've been working on it for over a year now. However, this new page was tagged to be deleted two minutes after it was created. Two minutes!!!

Shadowjams's assertions notwithstanding, the separation is not a poor editing choice. Instead, it reflects a unique aspect of this TV show. Every two or three seasons, the show's creative directors radically alter the show's premise and location. In so doing, it introduces a completely different set of characters and often dumps characters from previous seasons en mass. The first season is set in Agrestic, CA, a suburb of Los Angeles, CA. The show spends three seasons developing characters as Nancy Botwin deals pot her suburban neighbors. Then, the entire village burns down to the ground. Nancy moves her family to Ren Mar, CA in the San Diego area where Nancy reinvents herself as a member of a drug trafficing cartel. Instead of focusing on the divide between black and white America (Agrestic vs. West Adams), the show deals with illegal immigration. These shifts are far more radical than the shifts seen in other TV shows. (Imagine if a Republican got elected president during the middle of The West Wing or if the family in Full House picked up tent stakes and moved to Dallas, TX so the lead character could work in the oil industry.)

The show makes another major shift in season six when Nancy takes her family north to Seattle, WA and then to Dearborn, MI to avoid Esteban Reyes. Instead of being anchored in one place, the Botwins live in at least six different places over the course of two seasons. Again, in each location, there are very different sets of issues and characters.

So, what is the plan going forward? I (as the only person really working on this part of Wikipedia) want to have separate pages for (1) the Botwin family, (2) the James, Hodes, and Wilson families, (3) Agrestic characters, (4) Ren Mar characters, and (5) season six through eight characters. Eventually, the four leading Botwins (Nancy, Andy, Silas, and Shane) will have their own pages. I gave the James, Hodes, and Wilson families their own page because they have moved around with the Botwins. Celia, Dean, and Isabelle Hodes were in Ren Mar for both of seasons four and five. Doug Wilson has followed the Botwins from California to Copenhagen to New York City. Helyia James played a key role in season seven.

I'm trying to keep families grouped together as much as possible. Family ties play a very important role in the show, and Jenji Kohan often talks about the characters in that context. Again, the organization flows from the show's internal mechanics and dynamics.

I am open to a compromise. I'm willing to break up the "James, Hodes, and Wilson families" so the James are diverted to the "Agrestic characters" page. Notes on Heylia's role in season seven would be summarized on the "seasons six through eight" page with a link the main entry. The Hodes and Wilson families would have their own pages.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This was quite an unnecessary split. This article does not meet the general notability guideline, it is a plot-only description of a fictional work and it is completely unreferenced. Rather than merge, it is more simple to restore a previous version of the List of Weeds characters article before it was split. If that list was above the recommended article size, it is because that list is an indiscriminate collection of information and a complete exposition of all possible details instead of a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. While not in discussion in this AfD, the solution for this is simply removing all minor characters, which shouldn't be there in the first place, and streamlining the real important characters from the series with shorter summaries, removing as well all the unneeded supporting characters. This type of list are supposed to be comprehensive, not exhaustive. Jfgslo (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, when I read this comment, I get the impression that it is merely a stock response. There is no discussion with specific examples relevant to page(s) or show in question. Weeds is a major hit television show that has won multiple awards, has been nominated for dozens of awards, and stars who actresses who were famous before the show started. This page highlights some of the major characters in the show. Notability is at least unclear, "deletion should be a last resort." WP:FAILN Jfgslo's first suggestion to delete the new page.

For a specific example, I point you the entry for Heylia James. This is not a rote summary of Heylia's actions in the show. The actions delineated were specifically selected to describe Heylia's motivations. Heylia has a no nonsense attitude. She respects Nancy at first but later develops a huge grudge against her. That grudge becomes worse over time. Yes, there are specific examples highlighted from the plot; however, supporting evidence is needed. There is a lot of needless detail that I could have added, but it is needless because it doesn't help us understand Heylia.

Now, I will concede that that some of characters are underdeveloped and their entries need to be rewritten to better focus on motivations and characteristics rather than simple plot summary. However, Weeds is a show about families, and the "minor characters" often reflect upon the leading and recurring characters. Josh Wilson only appears in one episode, but his "gayness" haunts Doug and becomes a major issue for Doug. Dana only appears in one episode, but what she builds with Wilford makes Doug very jealous and cuts into his soul.

Yes, I need to add citations. However, I'm editing this all by myself, and I only have so many hours in a day. Given that deletion is the last resort, why not give me more time to fill in the needed citations and refocus the entries provided? After all, that's what editing is all about.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I was too assertive in my original comment. Upon reflection the issue is a little grayer. I'm sorry for coming off too strong. The original article was quite long... 100k does seem to meet the split criteria. However, as Jfgslo points out, part of the reason for that is due to it becoming a laundry list of even minor characters rather than focusing on those who play some role.
While I'm not outright changing my position, here are how this issue was handled in some other long-running popular TV shows:

Seinfeld - Major characters in main article, minor characters in a single article
The Wire - List of The Wire characters, split into 6 sup character articles and 1 primary
The Sopranos - List_of_The_Sopranos_characters, one large article 170k

As you can see there's a lot of diversity of options here. I tend to agree that the article should be trimmed rather than fully broken out, but perhaps there is some place for a limited split. Shadowjams (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources to WP:verify notability of these separate families. Already have a main character list. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to be vary careful in selecting which characters should be included. Minor characters are included if ...1) they are part of one of the major families2) they are a law enforcement character (law enforcement characters are foils to the rampent criminality among the other characters)3) they are a major character within a particular episode (like Irine Dodd in season one) or significantly alter the arc of an entire season (like Ampero in late season four)4) they are notable within their own right for being famous for other work (like Allison Janney, who appeared in season one, was already famous for playing C. J. Cregg on The West Wing)

What if for now, we had two pages? One for the Botwins (who need significant expansion) and one for everyone else?

Delete fails WP:GNG, articles need WP:RS. If this there's a related article to merge to that has WP:RS to support this content then merge (but none of the ones I'm seeing do). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2011 (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.