Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvia Noble

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 merge to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Courcelles 00:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Noble

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't seem to be enough reliable independent sources for this character to have an article. Yes, she was a recurring character, but essentially she was just Donna Noble's mum. She did nothing more. Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So is there a good merge target for this article? Jclemens (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Probably Donna Noble, imho.~~ --Redrose64 (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC) List of Doctor Who supporting characters; have revised my opinion. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly would be List of Doctor Who supporting characters, so this nomination clearly fails WP:ATD. Harry, even you don't seem to argue that we have to remove the content completely, just that she does not warrant an article. That might be correct but AFD is not the place to discuss where valid information is organized. So please withdraw this AFD and start a discussion about merging the content instead. Regards So Why 18:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much in the article that isn't WP:PLOT, IMO. Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there is nothing at all in that article that can be kept? Regards So Why 18:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I suppose the first and second sentences could be salvaged... Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it can be merged somewhere else where you think it would fit better? Remember, if you propose something to be deleted, ask yourself "Would Wikipedia be improved if all information on this subject is removed?" I don't think this is such a case. Regards So Why 19:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is saying she's a Doctor Who character. The second is saying she's related to Donna. The rest is just WP:PLOT. Harry Blue5 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the question. What you were asked was, So it can be merged somewhere else where you think it would fit better? Remember, if you propose something to be deleted, ask yourself "Would Wikipedia be improved if all information on this subject is removed?" I don't think this is such a case. ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 20:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia would be better off without the article. Has anyone read the article yet? Its only got actual episodes as sources and most of the article is something I consider trivial. IMO. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone read the article yet? Of course we've read the article. What sort of fools do you take us for? And as for your response above, you have still not answered the very specific question: Would Wikipedia be improved if all information on this subject is removed? ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 21:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Wikipedia would be improved if all the information that is in this article (other than the obvious This is a Doctor Who character thing) is removed. IMO. Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. So then why did you nominate the article for deletion? ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 06:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you know what? I see no notability in this. Wikipedia would be better off without her. A brief mention in Donna Noble and List of Doctor Who supporting characters, but nothing more. IMO. Harry Blue5 (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep—seems perfectly notable to me. She did a fair amount; I don't have much time now, but I'm willing to find some refs for this at some point. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 18:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Minor fictional characters are seldom notable enough for stand alone articles, and there's no indication this character is one of the exceptions. Character lists are still useful in the understanding of the work so there's a place for minor characters, though even then this character barely scrapes by.Edward321 (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JUSTAVOTE—invalid. ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 10:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment I have expanded my earlier comment. If you want to persuade anyone, I think your time would be better served by providing reliable, independent sources that discuss this character. Edward321 (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge into List of Doctor Who supporting characters 212.20.248.35 (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JUSTAVOTE—invalid. ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 10:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh noes - someone dissagrees with me - and there an IP!!! Why don't YOU actually give a decent reason for why this article desevres to stay seperate? You want reasons - non-notahble character with relatively few appearances - and article is practically all plot. Happy now? of course not, I still disagree with you. 212.20.248.35 (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the above comment is complaining that I marked, "merge into List of Doctor Who supporting characters," as just being a vote without any reasoning, then it seems to be missing the point that the comment was just a vote without any reasoning. Now that some semblance of an explanation has been provided – although simply identifying the character as "non-notahble [sic]" isn't altogether adequate either – that problem has been, broadly speaking, rectified. ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 11:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, he also added that the article is pratically all plot (I presume we're using {{xt}} to quote editors for this AfD now.) Not that that's a perfect argument. Harry Blue5 (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. No matter how hard I try, I can't find any significant coverage for the character. The best efforts were this and this, which are fairly pathetic. If anyone can find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG I'll retract this, but it won't be easy. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the sake of building a consensus. Lacks sources to meet WP:GNG which would be enough to warrant deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.