Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo Reynolds


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Jo Reynolds

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   --  treelo  radda  18:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  treelo  radda  18:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Consists only by plot and some trivia. By googling, I couldn't find anything that could establish notability. Why is not even linked by the TV series article? According to Special:WhatLinksHere/Jo_Reynolds the article is orphan as well! On the other hand, the article for the show is very good. -- Magioladitis (talk)
 * Merge to Daphne Zuniga or Melrose Place. Article has no sources, but this can be fixed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep due to boilerplate nom that merits nothing more than a boilerplate response.--63.3.1.1 (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except that TTN still provided a valid reason and you didn't. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Again, though one would not have guessed it, a major character in a major series. But, actually reading the relevant articles, it seems that her originally relatively minor role developed into one of the principal characters for four years of the series.  Major character in major series are appropriate for individual articles, and they share the notability of the series. I think it wrong to give a  boilerplate response regardless of the nom. DGG (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Minor component of fictional work. Wikipedia is not Soap Opera Digest. --John Nagle (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:PLOT applies here, as the article does not indicate any notable discussion of the real-world significance of this particular fictional character. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, rehashes plot, no sources, no established notability or coverage in third-party sources. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. -- Klein zach  08:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It is quite easy to find sources for this topic. Another cookie-cutter nomination which ignores WP:BEFORE.  Colonel Warden (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep based on DGG's reasoning and Colonel Warden's sources. Edward321 (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2008 (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.