Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polly (Doctor Who)
- 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. This is a messy situation and I'm probably going to get yelled at for closing this as a non-admin, however, the nominator is now on the keep side of the field and there seems to be a larger majority that wish to keep the article than redirect the article. Since redirection is not a deletion, I feel that the discussion for redirection can be taken up on the talk page or another avenue. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 21:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Polly (Doctor Who) (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)
While she is a companion, and a classic series one at that, Polly's article, alongside Ben's, rely excessively on primary sources, and I can't find any sources for her, either. Given that she is a companion, there may be bits and pieces of reception scattered about here and there, but I'm not sure if it's enough to warrant a full article. Worst comes to worst, she should be merged with Ben's article, or merged into the Companions article. As it stands right now, she doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Notable character with some sources, and ample potential for more from DVD features/interviews. Improve, but don't delete. U-Mos (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
* Weak Keep Notable companion side character should stand in line with WP:WAF, makes sense to keep. Gerblinpete (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- 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) 12:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- We were over this, if I recall, with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Potts. You seem to be living in some weird alternate universe where WP:ALLORNOTHING is a legitimate deletion argument, at least in regard to TV characters. Dronebogus (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Completely different case, given Doctor Who companions are a well-defined subset of Doctor Who characters. They even have their own category! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- No, not a completely different case. You’re literally making the exact same argument. Dronebogus (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- In all my years editing Wikipedia, I don't think I've ever noticed any edict making you the arbiter of which arguments are legitimate and which are not. Care to point me in its direction? If it doesn't exist, I'll stick to my original comment, if it's all the same with you. This is, after all, an AfD, where editors are free to make whatever comment they wish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- No-one is acting like “the arbiter of which arguments are legitimate” here except you. Multiple editors have shot down this argument at three of at least four instances of your use of it (here, AfD linked above, and Vislor Turlough) Dronebogus (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- While editors are free to make the arguments they wish to make, the arguments are expected to correspond to accepted policy. Repeated arguments that ignore the general consensus can reach the level of WP:IDHT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- There is no accepted consensus on this particular issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp: Now that secondary sources have been found after all, why not incorporate this into your argumentation as suggested by the neutral party, Liz, here? Daranios (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed. Now meets W:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp: Now that secondary sources have been found after all, why not incorporate this into your argumentation as suggested by the neutral party, Liz, here? Daranios (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- There is no accepted consensus on this particular issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- While editors are free to make the arguments they wish to make, the arguments are expected to correspond to accepted policy. Repeated arguments that ignore the general consensus can reach the level of WP:IDHT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- No-one is acting like “the arbiter of which arguments are legitimate” here except you. Multiple editors have shot down this argument at three of at least four instances of your use of it (here, AfD linked above, and Vislor Turlough) Dronebogus (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- In all my years editing Wikipedia, I don't think I've ever noticed any edict making you the arbiter of which arguments are legitimate and which are not. Care to point me in its direction? If it doesn't exist, I'll stick to my original comment, if it's all the same with you. This is, after all, an AfD, where editors are free to make whatever comment they wish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- No, not a completely different case. You’re literally making the exact same argument. Dronebogus (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Completely different case, given Doctor Who companions are a well-defined subset of Doctor Who characters. They even have their own category! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- We were over this, if I recall, with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Potts. You seem to be living in some weird alternate universe where WP:ALLORNOTHING is a legitimate deletion argument, at least in regard to TV characters. Dronebogus (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. As usual, it all comes down to, do available sources, in the article or found in current investigations, establish GNG for this article subject? For good or ill, notability that Keeps an article doesn't lie in the eye of the beholder but in the coverage that can be tracked down about this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who). Fairly minor early character with the slight novelty of being a rare reappearance of a classic companion in the revival. Only one surviving complete story featuring her exists, so I highly doubt any sources exist discussing her in detail. Dronebogus (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus:
I highly doubt any sources exist discussing her in detail
Well, there is at least Ruminations, Peregrinations, and Regenerations, p. 104-110. So I guess it's always better to search for oneself rather than simply speculate. @Pokelego999: Incidentally, that's right the first hit for me when I do the Google Scholar search. Now I wonder if there are more such sources out there... Daranios (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus:
- Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who). No evidence of notability shown in the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Zxcvbnm: As the current state of the article is not the decisive factor, what about the sources found outside the article? Daranios (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not the decisive factor for deletion at least. I'm not suggesting deletion however, nor do I think this was necessarily a matter to bring to AfD. If the section can be expanded to a sufficient amount, with good enough sources, it can easily be split off again and I have no prejudice towards doing that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Procedural note that a redirect is not a merge. Are you suggesting a specific Polly section at Companion (Doctor Who), where no other companion is covered in that way? U-Mos (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- I see no reason no to for companions that are provably covered somewhere.
- I still think the article in its current state is largely plot, so there is not that much point in a merge, but creating a section on her at the target is not out of the question. The article needs significant cleanup and reorganization. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Procedural note that a redirect is not a merge. Are you suggesting a specific Polly section at Companion (Doctor Who), where no other companion is covered in that way? U-Mos (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not the decisive factor for deletion at least. I'm not suggesting deletion however, nor do I think this was necessarily a matter to bring to AfD. If the section can be expanded to a sufficient amount, with good enough sources, it can easily be split off again and I have no prejudice towards doing that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Zxcvbnm: As the current state of the article is not the decisive factor, what about the sources found outside the article? Daranios (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect Zero sigcov. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 14:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep and improve, because Polly is a notable character after all: Women in Doctor Who: Damsels, Feminists and Monsters, p. 9, 13-17, is a another secondary source discussing the character. Together with the one mentioned above and multiple secondary sources with shorter mentions of Polly, that's enough to fullfill the minimum requirements of WP:GNG. Daranios (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Similar if somewhat shorter analysis: Doctor Who: A British Alien?, p. 65. Daranios (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Daranios Can you comment on how those sources meet SIGCOV? I think I see it in Ruminations... but I am having trouble finding it in Women... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: Women in Dr. Who, p. 9 as a group "female teenagers whose main job appears to be screaining for rescue", in need of babysitting, "disposable companions all playing the same role". P. 13-16 specific: "girl-in-distress", "Polly was the it girl, played by a popular actress", "more conventionally pretty…", relationship with Ben "evoking male fantasy of...", "very much the embodiment of the then-contemporary 1960's...", "refreshingly authentic" for the time, "upbeat", brings in emotion "as the traditional companion's role", another paragraph about the actress' intentions for the character, "good-bye to her is traditionally gender-coded...", contrasted as stronger "damsel" compared to past ages. Daranios (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Sources found by Daranios likely amount to SIGCOV. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants are divided between those arguing for a Redirection and those stating enough coverage exists to Keep. But there isn't a lot of policy-based argument on either side and stating "I highly doubt that any sources exist" translates to "I didn't look for sources". But that's okay, participants aren't obliged to look for sources but it's not a strong argument to make.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)- Comment as nominator. I seem to have missed several of these secondary sources during my search, and I now agree with the consensus that coverage for Polly exists. As a result, it seems she definitely is passing GNG/SIGCOV. Not sure if that means anything this late in the game, but I felt that I may as well leave my thoughts regarding the discussion here. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Notable character with coverage and reliable sources. Companion is a major role in the series.Frond Dishlock (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Many sources exist and she has coverage which can be expanded. If the article is not kept then it should be at the very least Merged with Ben's article (as in they have an article together with a change in the page title). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- 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.