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 somewhere, without a clear consensus as to where or that a suitable merge target exists. As has been done with other fictional works with a surplus of minor-character articles, it may be a good idea to develop new lists or reformat existing ones to accept merged information from such articles. That, however, is an editorial task, not an administrative one, and will probably take more planning and work than can be accomplished at a single AfD. It is encouraging to see that the discussion has largely remained civil, and it would be best to continue it between the editors involved as to how to develop such parent articles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Mitchell[edit]

Adam Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Two-episode Doctor Who character. The article is mostly a plot summary of those two episodes, peppered with fan observations (i.e. shortest travelling time with the Doctor, no appearances on the Tardis control deck). Despite these, the character isn't notable. Nydas^(Talk) 12:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This nomination is purely pointy .Garda40 (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How is it pointy? Nothing in the article proves the nom's deletion rationale wrong. Your link links to the nom's statement where he (justly or unjustly) believes that the sheer number of fans and admins of Doctor Who fandom would abuse their !votes for keeping articles that clearly fail policies and guidelines. By recommending keep without proving the nom's rationale invalid, you're actually re-inforcing the nom's belief. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you can't see how that nomination is pointy I can't help you and incidentally one of his rationales in the edit summary is wrong .Garda40 (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have said "how does the (perceived) pointyness of the nom justify keeping this article when the deletion rationale is valid." – sgeureka ^t•c 16:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Trying to prove a point in itself is not enough, to violate WP:POINT one must be disruptive in their proving of said point. So even if this AfD is being used as an example, it's not what I would call disruptive. -- Ned Scott 01:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. as above. --Kizor (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Should one of the above be removed? Rudget.talk 15:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, fixed. My mistake. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge a brief summary into Companion (Doctor Who) or into a new List of companions in Doctor Who (currently a redirect). Regardless of the nominator's motives, the article provides no evidence of reliable secondary coverage as required by Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), and any relevant coverage would probably be concerned with the two episodes this character was in rather than the character himself. EALacey (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article now has good real-world content, so thank you to the users responsible. However, I still doubt that this character needs an independent article; everything under "Conceptual history" can and should be in Dalek (Doctor Who episode) or The Long Game, which would make this article redundant. I read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as supporting the principle that things within works of fiction should be treated in the article about the works (in the case, the episodes) if that doesn't make them too long. EALacey (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge somewhere or redirect as non-notable character. This is just the repetition of information that already appears elsewhere on wikipedia. (The Long Game, Dalek (Doctor Who episode), Companion (Doctor Who)). No demonstration of notability of the article topic other than in-universe significance. Keep !voters should state how this article in its current states satifies WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICT, and WP:NOR. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Hiding T 15:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. —Hiding T 15:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - per repitition of content on other pages, so other data could be merged back with the original source. There is also some evidence of original research in the text, with which I quote "..The Dalek manages to break free and slaughter its way through the base". It also has no reliable or independent sourcing, and so any claims such as "making him one of the shortest-serving of television series companions" (in the lead) aren't verifiable. Rudget.talk 15:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Very little real-world commentary on this exceedingly minor character, so it will be impossible to reference. While long-standing Companions such as Sarah Jane have achieved individual notability, not every character introduced briefly as a once and former companion needs a separate article. Merge and redirect to List of Companions. --Lquilter (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested above. This really seems to me to be taking fandom a little too far for an encyclopedia.--Michig (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge With a lack of real world information, there is much to be trimmed. So much so that it would no longer make sense to stand as an independent article. -- Ned Scott 01:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep the character is notable, as Shannon Sullivan's site does have information about his casting Will ^(talk) 11:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And it's in. While it's short, it does pass the baseline of the general notability guideline: Shannon Sullivan's site is reliable, independent of the production team and BBC, and it is significant coverage. I therefore urge any !voters to reassess their opinions on the article. Will ^(talk) 12:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, I respect comprehensive fan sites as sources of information, but if you want to promote it as a reliable source, then please show some editorial guidelines. Where do they source their information? Do they have an editorial review process, like newspapers or peer-reviewed journals? If there are no editorial guidelines, then WP:V#self-published sources applies. Does Shannon Sullivan separately publish about this, demonstrating expertise that has been recognized elsewhere, such that we should recognize SS as an "expert" and trust SS's personal expertise? --Lquilter (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• By your response, I can tell you haven't even opened the site. As a matter of fact, ABHoT(T) does source its information. If it's good enough as a citation in a featured article, then it's good enough for the purposes of an AfD. Will ^(talk) 17:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm. I did open the site and looked at the two referenced articles in the Adam Mitchell article. They include "sources" at the bottom but the cites are not clearly referenced in the article, and the articles references sources that are not included in the sources ("the BBC..."), etc. I mean, this isn't an academically published work, and that's fine; it's great for a fannish database; and I'm sure it's probably pretty reliable. For a fan website. References alone are not editorial policies, btw, so the fact that they have a marginal "sources" section (which is good for a fansite) doesn't mean that they are a reliable source in the ordinary (academic, or journalistic, or wikipedia) meaning of the word. ... It doesn't matter, though, because even if shannonsullivan were reliable to my standards, it's still only one source of information, and does not suggest notability. --Lquilter (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dalek was put on FAR last year for lack of sources. During that time, SS was added as a source, twice. No-one raised an objection to that source, although there were objections raised to other sources. Now, excuse me if there's a gap in logic, but if a source is good enough for an FA, does'nt that automatically make it good enough for an AfD. Will ^(talk) 23:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No. The source may not have been carefully reviewed at that time. "Was not challenged" is not the same thing as "could pass a challenge" or "did pass a challenge". --Lquilter (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd think people would prioritise to scrutinise sources on the internet before going onto published books, especially in a FAR. Will ^(talk) 00:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And yet. It is my experience that FARs demand sources and kick out the very worst ones, but actual qualitative assessment of individual sources is rarely if ever approached. ... This is digressive, though; I think we have to agree to disagree about the value of the source. --Lquilter (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think an article with a lot of more reliable sources can use stuff from sources that are less reliable. An article using only sources from the lower end of the reliability spectrum have a harder job convincing editors that the topic is of note. Remember, whatever anyone says, notability is subjective. Our guidance on it is becoming increasingly full of subjective adjectives. Hiding T 10:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point - tx! --Lquilter (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the best possible place for it. Unless the real world information is so significant that it cannot be placed in a list entry or in the production of the episodes the character was featured, it doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There's as much conceptual history as Robert Chase from House, and seeing as the former only appeared for 90 minutes on screen, that's good. Will ^(talk) 13:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Other stuff exists" is not a good argument. We should probably delete RC, too. --Lquilter (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's in no way an "other stuff exists" argument. I'm saying because Robert Chase passes WP:FICT due to the conceptual history in his article, so does this article. Will ^(talk) 16:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, don't call it an "other stuff exists" argument. It appears to me on looking at the Robert Chase article, and reading your description of it, that that character is not real-world notable, either. However, I don't have time in my life to police all the fictional character biographies that appear in wikipedia. If someone else wants to post Robert Chase for AFD I will listen to the discussion and -- based on what I know at present -- most likely recommend deletion. Your argument-by-example (or whatever you want to call it) is thus not very helpful here. --Lquilter (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Companion (Doctor Who) StuartDD _{contributions} 16:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be happy to suggest a Merge if I could think of a good article to put it into. Unfortunately, Companion (Doctor Who) does not have any paragraphed or point-form details on specific characters; they're all in a table. Similarly, List of Doctor Who supporting characters only links to articles with single descriptions, and there is no List of Doctor Who minor characters. Given the way the Doctor Who character data has been laid out, and the notability of an actual televised (and thus somewhat canonical) character, my best suggestion would be to Keep. Radagast (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to above - we have List of Doctor Who supporting characters. I would suggest a List of Companions in Doctor Who page, or similar, as we will probably get few more of these in future. StuartDD _{contributions} 10:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good approach and would deal with Radagast's issue above. --Lquilter (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - coming into this a little late, I see conceptual history stuff for the character, which is out of universe and not a rehash of what's in the show itself. The fact that the character meets the general definition of "Companion" with respect to the show's format is sufficient of itself to justify an article; it merely needs to be done correctly. Furthermore, the character's failure to remain in the TARDIS was in itself significant. As discussed by Russell T Davies in Doctor Who Confidential and elsewhere, he was designed for failure, and this represents a reimagining of the whole companion concept, expanding the format beyond the old constraints on such characters. The solution here is to introduce more citations and discussions based on reliable sources (which do exist), not to delete the article because it's not yet all that it can be. --Karen | Talk | contribs 07:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you produce a few of these cites to show that they exist? Not enough to fully source the article but just enough as a proof-of-concept? --Lquilter (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to assume that a long-term contributor is lying to try to save an article, we may as well save ourselves some trouble, blow up the encyclopedia and go home.
I know you likely only meant to ask for the sources to check that they're suitable, just... be careful with wording, it's easy to take things the wrong way online. --Kizor (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't assume anyone was lying, and I hope Mavarin didn't take my comments that way. But Mavarin says the solution is to add cites, and I can't evaluate them (nor can anyone else) without seeing some of them. Discussion above has already shown that people have varying ideas of what qualifies as a reasonable cite in this space. I'll be happy to change my opinion if someone can show me published cites that talk about the interesting things that Mavarin describes. I would *love* to see reference-able, quality discussions of pop culture topics at that level. --Lquilter (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, that's why I cautioned you to be more careful instead of jumping down your throat. No big fuss. --Kizor (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken! Seems like a reasonable request. Let me see if it's in the Confidential cutdown, as I don't have the full version handy; also the commentary. I'll report back shortly, but I know I've heard RTD commenting on this.--Karen | Talk | contribs 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! The Confidential Cut Down didn't have the detail I remember from the full episode, and the commentary doesn't have Davies, although it does have the actor. (Still, I should listen to the rest of the commentary for anything that might be helpful.) But I did get one Davies quote from the Cut Down, and a quote and cite for the Companion Who Couldn't stuff from the book Doctor Who: The Inside Story, in which Davies speaks briefly about the character.--Karen | Talk | contribs 01:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I think it should become a part of List of Doctor Who villains (stop putting List of Doctor Who villains in red, it does exist!), as Adam is a bit of a baddie (demonstrated in The Long Game). Please take my views into account. -- From an 11-year-old kid named Chad Sladerri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.24 (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It exists, and won't be red-linked, if spelled correctly. I've corrected the spelling.Shsilver (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Let me just second the previous keep comment. What is interesting about this character is his flaws and that he couldn't cut it as a companion, and in that way is more interesting than some of the longer lived companions who act as window dressing. --121.216.1.44 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, those who care can always recreate the article once sources are discovered. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Um, but reliable sources have already been found and added, along with some real-world info. I can look for some more, but I hesitate to put in much more work on an article that currently seems destined for Mergeville anyway. --Karen | Talk | contribs 08:02, 2 December 2007 (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.