Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Tyler

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 results were keep and no consensus. This is a pretty messy discussion that to my mind illustrates the problems of bundling AfD discussions for articles of widely disparate quality and with wildly different potential for expansion. Increasing the complexity was the existence of a number of smaller satellite AfD discussions, that were all created by accident at the same time as this one. See Grutness's comment of December 1 below for details. One article was also substantially rewritten and improved during the discussion, further complicating matters.

With that said, it can be established with a fair degree of certainty that there seems to be a consensus to keep Gene Hunt and Sam Tyler. There also appears to be a weaker consensus to keep Alex Drake. It is much harder to determine a consensus for the other characters, so I have opted to close them as no consensus, defaulting to keep. Some editors made good arguments to merge these articles into "List of characters" articles, I strongly encourage all involved editors to continue discussing this possibility at another page.

As this has been a complex case, I am open to further reasoned argument if I have missed something in closing this AfD. At the same time, I would not object to more specific nominations being made for individual articles if there are any issues that have flown "under the radar" on this more generalised discussion.

Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Tyler

Establishes no claim to notability for this character, and does not provide substantial third-party references to establish notability. This character isn't widely documented or studied in the arts, and therefore is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Mikeblas (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also listing these for deletion for similar reasons. All are less important characters than "Sam Tyler", who is the lead; but the articles all have the same problems. Some are completely unreferenced.

-- Mikeblas (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. With the exception of a lack of sources on two or three of the articles, all of them satisfy the three-pronged test at WP:FICTION#Characters. —BradV 05:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moderately strong keep for Sam Tyler, weaker keep for Gene Hunt, ambivalent about the others. These two are the two central characters in the show, and - at least in the case of Tyler, there is some evidence that his name is being used in common parlance to refer to someone stuck in the past. As such, I'd say that article does qualify to some extent. Grutness...wha? 05:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Life on Mars (TV series). No evidence of notability independent of the series, especially since like-named characters are in the US remake of the series. Once the original research and plot summary is removed, there is little left that could not be served by the main article. McWomble (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. These are articles about principle characters in an internationally broadcast television drama; it is absurd to suggest that they aren't notable because they "aren't studied in the arts". As the drama series has its own project notability isn't in question. Numerous other Wikipedia articles link to these articles. Articles are generally well referenced, and should not have been nominated in the first place, this is just tying up AFD time.andi064 ^{T . C} 09:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep - All the characters are well known, and appear in several media publications outside of the Wiki, so are notable. Also, a new series starts of Ashes to Ashes soon, so it would be a waste to delete them when editors will want to insert new content because of what may come to light in the new series. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per Andi064 (Quentin X (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sam Tyler and especially Gene Hunt, I've never even watched Life on Mars, but I know both these characters. I believe the Gene Hunt character has been the subject of much debate in Britain, leading into the argument of "Do policeman have enough power?/Is there too much bureaucracy in the modern police force?" etc. In fact I even remember him being the subject of discussion on Question Time with Brian Paddick! The rest you can Merge. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Keep - certainly very notable. I'd keep them all, personally, some shops even have T-shirts with Gene Hunt quotes on them here and here and here for just three examples of Gene Hunt T-shirts from different shops. Gene Hunt is a legend in the UK, and has been discussed even in the Houses of Parliament! Theresa Villiers in Parliament refers to a draft paper using a Gene Hunt-type approach, Hazel Blears compares herself here to Gene Hunt during another Parliament session, and Tom Brake mentioned Gene in Parliament only a month ago. I don't believe the original nominator for deletion has any idea of the cultural importance of these characters in British everyday life. With another series of Ashes to Ashes about to come out, the characters will become more and more relevant. As though they could become even more relevant than they already are. Tris2000 (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Can you help me find the wording in WP:N where tee shirts being available from a single vendor demonstrates notability? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(add) lol "convenient" how you forgot to comment on his 3 parliamentary sources and just his t-shirt ones! Ryan4314 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about the T-shirts, that was just an example. It is obviously notable, that is obvious to anyone. It is notable because I cant see Hazel Blears talking about it if she knows that people who look confused and say "Who's Gene Hunt"? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to pick up on the Hazel Blears remark. all she is saying is that in her comments on the Bill (not the programme but the parliamentary Bill) she has only got up to the 1970s. It is a passing remark, not an indication of cultural significance. It is a trivial reference. Springnuts (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sam Tyler, Gene Hunt per demonstrated notability; articles should be improved rather than removed. Neutral on the others. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN - consideration should also be taken of comments at the following AfDs, all of which were inadvertently opened during this debate (I "procedural close"d them, but there was too much cross-reference in them to merge any of the comments in here): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Cartwright, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Hunt, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Carling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Skelton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllis Dobbs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Drake, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Granger. Grutness...wha? 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all except Gene Hunt. Only the Hunt article has any reliable third-party sources. The rest have zero. None. We don't keep non-stub articles without sources. Powers ^T 23:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Plenty of third party media coverage about this series and its characters. I also have to echo a colleague's comment decrying "isn't studied in the arts" being used as a rationale for nomination. If that were the case 99% of pop culture articles would have to go. WP:N is nowhere near that discriminatory. 23skidoo (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although Gene Hunt is now borderline, the others do not establish the real world notability of the characters independent of the series. They consist almost entirely of plot summary, trivia and original research. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. McWomble (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gene Hunt; Redirect all the rest Redirect all to List of Life on Mars characters. Certainly worth a redirect, however there are two issues. First, the lack of any reliable sources - the odd blog does not cut the mustard. Second, and more important, there is no real world perspective. - Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#.233:_Availability_of_real_world_perspective The proposed guidelines on notability for fictional topics say that "individual character articles ... should only be created when the alternatives are not feasible". - Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Characters The same article suggests a helpful question: "How does the reader's understanding of this topic suffer if this fictional element is ... only summarized in the main article?" Not at all, imo. Springnuts (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with you as regards most of the nominated articles, the Gene Hunt article does contain real-world perspective, in the final section at the bottom. I think if the plot summary is reduced that a valid article could emerge. Powers ^T 15:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My 'vote' was originally on the Annie Cartwright AfD ... hmmmm - you may be right on Gene Hunt, though I don't see very strong real world perspective - perhaps it is just overwhelmed by the plot summary and would show up well in a much shorter article. Springnuts (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All- There is absolutely nothing wrong with these articles. A lot of effort and detail has gone into them. This nomination smacks of deletionism and US centralism. The characters in The Sopranos all have articles, how is this series different, British made maybe? Wikipedia dosent belong just to elitists or Americans. Archivey (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ... It is tough when a great deal of effort has gone into an article - especially if there are other articles that appear to be similar and are not up for deletion. As far as possible though we just have to stick to the policy. Springnuts (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is absolutely everything wrong with these articles - they do not meet the general notability guideline. Although Gene Hunt is now borderline, the others do not establish the real world notability of the characters independent of the series. They consist almost entirely of plot summary, trivia and original research. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. McWomble (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have largely re-written the Gene Hunt article, to the point that I believe it satisfies requirements for inclusion [1]. Plot details have been condensed, original research has been replaced with sourced, verifiable information, and the article now includes a vast array of critical commentary from broadsheet newspapers, establishing the character's notability. For this reason, I vote strong keep of both the Gene Hunt and Sam Tyler articles. The latter could easily be improved to the standard of the former (which clearly still needs work, but took only a single evening to improve to the point it's at now.) I would contend that notability and reference templates ought to have been added to these two articles before deletion was sought, as both characters clearly are notable - household names in the UK and iconic television figures. I would also suggest keep of the Alex Drake article, as I believe there is vast room for improvement there also, albeit perhaps not to the same extent as with Tyler and Hunt. As for the rest, merge to List of Life on Mars characters and List of Ashes to Ashes characters as applicable. They may be notable within the context of the relevant series, but they do not have the same level of real-world notability as the show's primary protagonists. Frickative 02:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It relies too heavily on primary sources. McWomble (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I said the article still needed work. Yes, 10 of the 26 sources are primary ones. However, if the addition of sixteen secondary sources, and from broadsheets rather than tabloids at that, isn't enough to establish that a subject is clearly notable and needs improvement rather than deletion, then I would suggest that your interpretation of the notability guideline is erring on the side of far too stringent. Frickative 14:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for the Gene Hunt article as it now stands, Keep for Sam Tyler and Alex Drake while acknowledging that there is room for improvement in both, and Merge to List of Life on Mars characters and/or List of Ashes to Ashes characters as appropriate given that some sourcing exists on these articles and those articles that discuss all of the characters but no one character in depth make so-so sources for individual articles make solid references for a list of all the characters. - Dravecky (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all to strongly consider merger Some characters may have stand-alone notability, others don't, but the problem is that no real notability has been established for either article. What gets merged and what doesn't should be discussed outside of AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:21, 4 December 2008 (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.