Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Branning


 * 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. The SandDoctor Talk 07:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Joey Branning

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Soap opera character who lacks real world notability. An attempt to redirect to List of EastEnders characters (2012) was undone. Bringing it here for final determination. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The character hardly lacks real world notability, he was involved in some of the most prominent storylines during his tenure on the soap. There’s plenty of other characters with much less notability, not to mention how popular Joey was. His sister Alice also has her own article, whom is just as big of a character as he was. Joey is also likely to return at some point in the future, as he is part of one of the soap’s biggest families of all-time. I personally think it’s a great article and think it should be kept, there’s so many other characters that are less worthy of their own article.Soapoholic (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is generally thought that referring to other stuff existing is an argument to avoid at AfD. What are the WP:THREE best sources in your mind showing real world notability? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to a suitable list article. Once again folks are confusing popularity or in-universe notability with real world notability. Fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 00:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Previous attempts to create this article have been copied and pasted from the list entry and no effort was made to show notability. This article is a massive expansion on that. I have always urged users to do this kind of work before splitting an article from one of the character lists to an independent article. I'm satisfied that the sources determine real-world notability. Also, the actor won a National Television Award for this character's portrayal. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  10:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: on the one hand, there are 2 or three sources (with a dozen instances each) there that probably spend some time talking about this character (since he is named in all the titles), but on the other hand, they all look like primary, plot-recap coverage. There are a few interviews and listicles of sexy actors mixed in. Since I don't want to wade through dozens of soap rag pieces (with the attendant brain damage) looking to see if any of these are reliable, significant, and independent, can somebody tell me which of them aren't going to melt my brain with insipidity? Rockphed (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , my analysis before nominating is with you that most coverage is of the recap rather than notability establishing nature variety. I hope that or  will give examples of stronger coverage suggesting notability and thus not just a candidate for the list. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I feel your reply is rather insulting to those who edit these types of articles. Soap operas and fictional characters are already looked down upon enough, without the need for your comments about getting brain damage from reading them or the sources.  I went through every source and there are only two episode recaps   (and two that are sort of previews of a scene  ). The other sources are a mix of interviews with the actor and news pieces about storylines. Some of the Digital Spy sources do quote from other news outlets and magazines, but they could be replaced with the originals. I won't !vote yet, but I'm leaning towards keep with a view to having the article thoroughly copyedited. - JuneGloom07  Talk  22:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While I did intentionally cast aspersions on the sourcing of this article, I did not mean to cast aspersions on either the editors responsible for creating it or on soap operas as a genre (though "soap opera" might be a deprecated term that originated as a way to cast aspersions on the genre). Thank you for your cursory analysis of the sources.  If I stumbled on a deletion discussion about a transformer, a D&D monster, or a sci-fi author with similar sources, I would probably balk at wading through the sources despite being sufficiently interested in those topics to be less than neutral about their notability. Looking through the sources, I find the following that support notability:
 * The first is actually a very good, in depth summary of who the character is, what motivates him, and his impact on the show, however, it is from the Metro, which is listed as generally not reliable. The second is in the same vein, but seems a little less in depth (though it is still significant, seems independent, and digital spy is listed as a generally reliable source).  All-in-all, I think he lands on the line for GNG based just on the sources in the article. There are probably a few more, so I am voting weak keep. Rockphed (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The first is actually a very good, in depth summary of who the character is, what motivates him, and his impact on the show, however, it is from the Metro, which is listed as generally not reliable. The second is in the same vein, but seems a little less in depth (though it is still significant, seems independent, and digital spy is listed as a generally reliable source).  All-in-all, I think he lands on the line for GNG based just on the sources in the article. There are probably a few more, so I am voting weak keep. Rockphed (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The first is actually a very good, in depth summary of who the character is, what motivates him, and his impact on the show, however, it is from the Metro, which is listed as generally not reliable. The second is in the same vein, but seems a little less in depth (though it is still significant, seems independent, and digital spy is listed as a generally reliable source).  All-in-all, I think he lands on the line for GNG based just on the sources in the article. There are probably a few more, so I am voting weak keep. Rockphed (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Much as I dislike these massive soap character biographies, it is Something We Do, for many of the high impact series. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but outside a change in general conventions - which is not a fight we are going to win - these hundreds (thousands?) of large articles aren't going away; and I don't see grounds for deleting this particular one, which is comparable in content and quality to the usual fare of this type (e.g., those on List of Friends and Joey characters and whatnot). Shelve with 3rd league Romanian footballers and hope for a sea change :/ -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I am certain that this article passes WP:GNG and the sources do not appear to be just episode recaps. There is a nice selection of sources used and probably more offline print sources discussing this fictional character. The reception section appears to be strong and sourced too, which leans me towards keeping it.Rain the 1 12:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I am in agreement that this article definitely passes WP:GNG. There is plenty of development and reception, and notability has certainly been established. Soaper1234 - talk  14:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

What’s the decision going to be? Surely we’ve discussed this enough?Soapoholic (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It stays open for 7 days, barring cases where there's complete unanimity and an earlier decision in one direction would obviously be fine with all participants (as is not the case here). - Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm in agreement with the majority here. Joey passes WP:GNG as he was a large part of the soap while he appeared in it, and is still talked about to this day. – DarkGlow (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think as the article stands it passes WP:GNG, and follows guidelines set out at WP:FICT and WP:SOAPS. It does need a copyedit and some of the original sources added in place of the Digital Spy ones. - JuneGloom07 Talk  22:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep largely per Elmidae. Additionally, while Metro is generally unreliable, I can think of little reason to doubt the accuracy of their coverage of fictional characters in soap operas. signed,Rosguill talk 23:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV; notable soap opera and fictional character. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.