Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanne Francis


 * 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, but suggest a merge on the talk page of the target.  Syn  ergy 05:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Joanne Francis

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

Minor character. Appeared for only some episodes in a long running soap opera. No media coverage, third party source, no real world information (just actor's name and dates of first and last appearance). Fails notability (see also WP:FICTION and WP:SOAPS). Magioladitis (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —Magioladitis (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because you cant find recent online media coverage on this topic, does not mean there hasnt been coverage. On the contrary actually, and there is a lot to add from books and older media sources. There is a wikiproject overseeing these articles, and a lot of work is going into cleaning them up. To avoid unnecessary AFDs in the future, it would be helpful if you take issues to the project in the future. It takes time to clean soap articles up with such a small number of editors willing to add anything other than plot summary, so we would be grateful for some patience.  GunGagdin Moan 18:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Gungadin. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge for now. There's almost never a reason to delete rather than merge articles on long running characters in the major soap operas. But, Gungadin, your argument would be much more effective if you actually found some of these sources. I suggest you work fast. If you can find some independent secondary work treating these characters in suitable detail, it might be possible to save (or resurrect) quite a number of related article. 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment See also: WP:PLOT. Article created 2 years ago and still consists only of plot under a section called "History" mixing, in this way, reality with fiction. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Comment: Wikipedia doesn't have a time limit, and with only two regular editors in the WikiProject, it's hard to work on all articles and find sources in a short space of time. Something not being done immediately is not a good enough reason to delete an article. Though I have full faith in Gungadin to be able to find sources for this article (see Pauline Fowler, Ronnie Mitchell etc for examples of her work), it may take some time. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Trampikey, and as it goes, I started it. Please remember Magioladitis, we are volunteers. We have careers, we have social lives, we do what we can when we can. Progress may be slow, but it is constant, and that is a good thing in my opinion. Go check the numerous other soap operas on wiki who only have articles for their characters that include only plot summary, and you'll see the difference in the majority of our articles. We're fully aware of WP:PLOT and all the other policies, we've been here years. We are trying our best.  GunGagdin Moan 00:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just added the last comment as an extra to the problems this article has. My general idea for who we can handle soap operas is that: We need good articles for the soap opera itself, for the main long running characters, list for the recurring charactres with short descriptions, maybe some lists with just character's name-actor's name-years of appearance for minor and omit characters who make guest appearances for some episodes.
 * I don't think we have to delete all articles of fictional character, but please discriminate important and non-important characters. I can't believe that 200 characters in a soap opera are notable enough and they have notability outside the show. Because there is the key. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that is where you are wrong, and I dont know how much you know about the history of EastEnders, but this soap gets mass media coverage in the UK, tabloids and broadsheets. Especially these old characters, because they are from a time when the soap was getting nearly 30 million viewers and episode in the 80s and early 90s. Obviously, online sources arent as easy to get hold of for these older characters, but they are out there. In addition, once Google starts the newspaper archive thing it is doing, where they will be giving access to every newspaper story from the last 200 years, it will become much easier. But whatever, you seem to have a lust for deletion, so no point arguing. What will be will be.  GunGagdin Moan 00:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No the media coverage is in addition, because I think the character is not notable enough judging by the number of its appearances in the show. That "soap gets mass media coverage in the UK" that doesn't mean that the character itself is notable. Still, if you think you need some time to improve the article, please, I can withdraw the AfD. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, thing is, that's like saying Darth Vadar is not notable, only Star Wars is. If a media source is discussing a character and its development, then it's about the character as well as the show. Just my opinion, and that's the whole problem with these policies, they are all open to interpretation. Thanks for the offer of withdrawing, it would be nice to not have to work to a deadline, particularly during the working week, but hopefully I will get a chance to improve some more before the end of the AFD.  GunGagdin Moan 00:55, 17 September 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.