Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo Fahey


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Jo Fahey

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nothing to prove notability, not even existence. Page contains no real world information but only some piece of a plot. Magioladitis (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No evidence of real-world notability. Plot-only summary of fictional work. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Fair City. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly? There is no validation that the plot is accurate and we have Storylines of Fair City already. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Playing devil's advocate, plot details do not generally need verification citations as their accuracy should be apparent to anyone watching the relevant episodes. I'd still say delete rather than merge though as this would be an inappropriate level of detail in any other article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is no verification, anyone can claim that the plot is different of what is described. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No they can't, because the show itself establishes one person as correct and the other not. The show itself is the source, as long as the relevant material can be extracted from it without synthesis.  And it doesn't need to be cited because the source of the material is obvious from the context of the text.  To put it another way, you could add an inline citation at the end of the plot, saying merely "Eastenders (TV Show)", and at a basic level that would meet our verification policies (although at FA level you'd certainly want something more specific), but it's not strictly necessary as (a) it's not material likely to be challenged, as no one could reasonably say "I don't believe this is accurate" without themselves having watched the relevant shows, and (b) it's obvious from the context of the article what the source is.  Plot summaries for books are generally not cited, for much the same reason, although specific quotes from the book may be. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I presume you never participated in edit wars whenever a character did something or didn't. I could find a lot of examples I guess. For instance in Heroes (TV series), there was a discussion for almost 2 years if a certain character had a superhuman ability or not. Many editors were coming and adding it claiming they have seen the power being used in-show. Some other kept using trailers as sources. Many times the writers give misleading clues just to make the show more exciting. And there something else: If an editor comes here and adds character to this specific show that never existed, how can I check it? Do you expect me to watch the last 20 years of this soap? There are not even dates of appearance in most cases, making verification impossible. That's also one more reason reason we need trusted third-party sources. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The material must be apparent from the source without synthesis; i.e. requiring no deduction or analysis. Your Heroes example was not obvious on the source, so you'd need a secondary source to back it.  The Jo Fahey article (which I am still in favour of deleting, as above) cites each storyline to a specific year, which may be appropriate on a soap like Eastenders where plots can trail on for months.  Yes, you would need to watch a year of stories to contradict the claims.  It's no different from having to read a 400 page novel to contradict plot claims from that which can't be sourced to a single page or chapter, or watch a three hour movie.  The difficulty in proving a negative is one of the reasons why we generally have to assume good faith. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 02:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - no evidence of notability, no real-world information. – anemone projectors – 23:43, 9 February 2011 (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.