Talk:Stan Carter

Own page

He ought to have his own page. He has his own big storyline and has been in the show for more than a year. Surely Stan should get that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.242.2 (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

As it stands, there isn't enough real-world information in the article to justify a separate page, but I'm sure there will be enough out there - the work needs to be done first. –anemoneprojectors– 12:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Not at present, as per what AP says.--5 albert square (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Find the real world info and do it.--86.144.243.230 (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Stan is a notable character, he's the patriarch of the Carter family (or was), he had a big storyline and appeared in the show for over a year. He should have his OWN page.--Cindy's Cafe (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

He could do if someone writes a good enough article. But there's no "should". Notability has to be proven, it's not just a matter of opinion. Being a patriarch with a big storyline and in the show for over a year doesn't autimatically qualify a character for their own Wikipedia article. –anemoneprojectors– 21:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I think length of time and having a significant storyline does qualify for Stan having his own Wikipedia article. Someone should write it up with all the necessary links etc.--Cindy's Cafe (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If no one is willing to write a draft or expand the list entry, then it probably won't happen. Nothing has been written that wasn't already there when this discussion started, as far as I can see. Length of time and a significant storyline is only enough to write a detailed plot. Articles should not be just plot, so the real-world information needs to be found first. I've also seen a trend of people recently writing articles and including plot details in the development sections, which is wrong. Mick Carter is a good example of how an article should look, or AJ Ahmed, or Nick Cotton. –anemoneprojectors– 08:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone tried giving him his own page. Says on history.--Cindy's Cafe (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes but the history shows that it was a carbon copy of the list entry, and there was no attempt to show the notability of the character in the real world. –anemoneprojectors– 13:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

A dedicated user has now worked hard on the article, so thanks to Soaper1234 for that. AnemoneProjectors 13:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you AnemoneProjectors. I hope the article meets the standards it was wished. —Soaper1234 (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It certainly looks like it does. I ought to have a full read of it, but it definitely looks all there. AnemoneProjectors 23:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Soaper :)--5 albert square (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)