- 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. A rare Keep in this flood of Doctor Who AFD nominations. Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Vislor Turlough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As much as I like Turlough, he does not meet SIGCOV. He is generally notable in the series and has grounds for potentially passing GNG, but there quite literally exists no sources for him that establish his notability separately. He should probably be merged into the Companions article. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Companion (Doctor Who). Likely enough search term to not be hard deleted Dronebogus (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While I'm not entirely sure each companion needs an article, I see no value in deleting the article on a single companion when all the others have articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely you know of WP:OTHERSTUFF. And bundling articles often leads to problems if a select few are indeed notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely I do, but that doesn't invalidate my comment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering multiple companion articles have been nominated for deletion, it does seem an odd stance to me - evidently if more than one nomination were successful, then there would be more than one companion without an article. Also worth noting that Katarina (Doctor Who) was recently redirected. U-Mos (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Which also falls under the header of WP:OSE! In any case, sources have now been found to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably keep.
- Has it been established that, of the 63,000 results for searching ''"Dr Who" "turlough"'' in Google there are no RS or SIGCOV? There is clearly coverage, and surely it is up to the person wanting to delete an established article to show that it is not significant, to some extent? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He has enough coverage as depicted by the sources, thus illustrating notability. However, I am going to add some reception to the article to make it less in universe. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who) . Article has no reception/analysis and is just a plot summary, claims above that there is coverage are not backed up by explanation where that coverage exists. Feel free to ping me is I missed a good source mentioned somewhere, but right now what I see is standard WP:FANCRUFT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Update/comment: I have added some reception to the article now so it is less in universe. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks but that's "listicle" level of coverage... ("#10 on his list of the "10 Most Hated Doctor Who Characters"). It's a start, and certainly more valuable content to merge than most of the plot summary. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There's enough to establish individual notability for the character. Companion is a major role within the show and even then attracted media attention.Frond Dishlock (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I had a look at some of the sources available at The Internet Archive and found a few that look like they contribute to the subject meeting GNG and/or would be useful to help build the article. There's a section on the character, and some other mentions, in Doctor Who : the companions by John Nathan-Turner (so not an independent source, but still usable IMO); some commentary alongside an interview with the actor in issue 17 of Fantasy Empire magazine; possibly some usable comments in Queers dig Time Lords; and some observations on the character by Peter Davison in Is there life outside the box?, for example. (@Piotrus: - I'm not sure whether you would agree with any of these.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @BennyOnTheLoose Thanks. You did not list any of those, and I am pressed for time ATM, so if you want me to review them, well, links would be appreciated. Otherwise I can only say that this is the case of WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Piotrus: Fair point. I've added some links. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as there are secondary sources after all, which I believe fullfill the requirements of WP:GNG. As some, like Companions: Fifty Years of Doctor Who Assistants are quite easy to find in a usual WP:BEFORE search, I have to agree with Rick Jelliffe that a discussion why those should not fullfill WP:GNG should have been provided by the nominator. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2023 (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.