Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Pond

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.

Amy Pond[edit]

The result was Keep. Thanks to Cirt (talk · contribs), the article now meets the guidelines, so the grounds for deletion are no longer present. I kindly want to remind folks that AfDs are not ment as a means to improve articles. — Edokter • Talk • 01:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable character who does not appear on screen until Spring of next year, therefore violation WP:CRYSTAL. Re-create closer to the time if the character does indeed become notable. WossOccurring (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - obvious notability, as any companion of the Doctor. More than 60 % of the episodes of the season are already in the box, so the chances of this character being deleted are nought. In addition the character will probably been shown in the trailer at the end of the January 1st broadcast of the final Special. Hektor (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So which aspect of the general notability guideline do you feel this passes? WossOccurring (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two main characters (the Doctor and the Companion) of the highest profile television show in Great-Britain. Hektor (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please name the aspect of THIS document that the article passes. WossOccurring (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a private conversation between the two of us, this is a deletion review. I have said enough. Amy Pond has received significant coverage from mainstream British media when the selection of Karen Gillan was announced. Since most of the shooting has been completed (which has also been covered in British mainstream media), the notability of this character does not violate WP:CRYSTAL as you incorrectly stated. Even if Karen Gillan was leaving the show today for whatever reason, the amount of material already shot guarantees that this character would not be deleted. Hektor (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One primary source does not satisfy the general notability guide. And I am not attempting to engage in a personal conversation; I am trying to rebuke your argument which reeks of WP:ILIKEIT due to your first comment and past history in editing Doctor Who-related articles. WossOccurring (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Won't be seen until later this year, and the article is merely a sentence long. Should probably just be added to the Companion page until information becomes available. Ω phois 19:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Hektor. There was much news coverage of the character's casting, back in May [?]. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 19:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there was so much news coverage, then why is none of it in the article? Ω phois 19:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I didn't write the article. But if you doubt that it exists, just look for it – as you could easily have done before. ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 19:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Hektor, even though the series hasn't started yet, it's been announced who is playing who, we've got a page for the Eleventh Doctor, and that one stayed even with a handful of citations. I'm sure there will be more reports in the newspapers and such closer to the time. SimonD (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Eleventh Doctor stayed because it's an actual article. This article is merely one sentence, and offers no other information than that she will be a companion. Ω phois 19:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion should be based on subject, not on content. Hektor (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's enough on google news to pass the GNG with respect to casting, and tons more to come. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am seeing good coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Also, if needed we can get the Eleventh Doctor to use the TARDIS to time travel for additional coverage. :P Cirt (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BBC + Guardian = 2 external sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC is a primary source. WossOccurring (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, BBC News, as a source, is considered independently of other arms of the BBC. As in, Doctor Who is produced by BBC Wales, and any BBC News reports on it are considered to be reliable and secondary. Or something. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 23:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it's a new character, it has to start somewhere, and it's likely the article will grow over time, so deleting it is pointless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karen Gillan. I don't think this deserves two articles upon a mere announcement of the part. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above other editors reasons to keep. Pro66 (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karen Gillan: at this time, I do not see sufficient content for an Amy Pond article separate from a Karen Gillan article. There is little in the current Amy Pond article that isn't also in the Gillan article. The sources given above are generally more about Gillan than about the character. Bondegezou (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliably sourced by multiple independent sources. As said article was created (and expanded) after the character's official announcement, WP:CRYSTAL is not an issue here. --Madchester (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Article has been vastly improved since the afd started. And it seems like its a white christmas in here. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: good improvement, article will no doubt gather more material, but there's enough there already to keep. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't seem to be an issue - nominator is perhaps unaware that in the UK we tend to shoot whole seasons in one go, prior to airing the first episode.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have done some research, and improved upon the article. It is in an improved state of quality as compared to when it was originally nominated. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the frankly fantastic job Cirt did updating and expanding the article--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:GNG, bypassing WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2009 (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.