Talk:Mrs. Doyle

It's unencyclopedic and somewhat POV, but thought I'd just mention here that whilst Mrs. Doyle is, shall we say, less than attractive, she is played by the lovely Pauline McLynn, who looks nothing like her. -- Anon

Were we paid a visit by a celebrity guest editor there? Dan 18:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Clare doye is my teacher. - User:Julianc

Whither Mrs. Doyle
Lucretia, perhaps. 83.70.239.47 02:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

First Name
I seriosuly doubt that Mrs. Doyle is revealed to be Joan.
 * Go check the official script book (don't know its details off-hand), look for the episode with the character Henry Sellers in it ("Competition Time", I think). There's a line "Oh, Joan, you're such a dictator!" with a footnote about dark secrets, etc. I'll put a citation in later. The Holy ettlz 17:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Its Mrs not "Mrs."
as it's a contraction not an abbreviation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.240.132 (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree with you, but unfortunately she's listed in the credits as "Mrs." also abbreviations would be without the. too.62.31.149.187 (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well actually if it is a contraction or abbreviation, it has still been shortened and therefore requires the full stop. --Cexycy (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Main article or redirect?
Can someone please explain to me why there is an article on Mrs. Doyle herself which has been bypassed (redirected)? What's the point of having the article there if it is just being ignored?

Who is in favour of removing the redirect?

As for the matter of notability, please remember that Mrs. Doyle, albeit a fictional person is a character from a notable TV Series, as are many other characters from other notable programmes who also have their own articles. --Cexycy (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Notability is not inherited. Just because Father Ted is notable, that doesn't mean Mrs Doyle is.
 * 2. The previous page had zero indication of notability in the right way as defined by the guideline - evidence of significant third party coverage of the character alone, rather than simply mentions onf the character alongside mentions of the show/actor. Infact, it had no third party references at all.
 * 3. The article is redirected because, even though the article is not justified, the search term is obviously useful, and so is retained for navigation, rather than being deleted. This does not however mean a separate article is justified.
 * 4. Other stuff exists - it is irrelevant if other chracters have articles, some might be notable, some might not be, the only relevant measure is the relevant policy and guideline pages, against which all articles should be measured to achieve consistency across the pedia.
 * 5. The article is not being ignored, the whole of the text that was in it, was pasted into Characters of Father Ted wholesale
 * 6. The practice of merging of such non-notbale pages into more usefull Character lists is well established, the merge was not a novel action on my part
 * 7. If you still disagree with any of the above, feel free to seek a third opinion
 * MickMacNee (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I thought the point of AFDing articles is to save space on Wikipedia so it can be used for more notable articles. The article itself is still there. Despite merging or redirecting it is still there in itself. As I said before characters from other shows have their own articles, so what are the rules regarding these which do not apply to Mrs Doyle?

If it has to go, it has to go, But I'm just asking why when there are so many other artiles of a similar vain. I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at. --Cexycy (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I understand it, even deleted articles are not saving space - they can still be seen by admins so they are stored somewhere, so that is why there is no waste occuring here, whether it is hidden by a redirect or Afd'd. It is only WP:OVERSIGHT that can remove data permanently, and that occurs very rarely. I will repeat aswell, it hasn't gone from the pedia either - all of the text has been moved to the list article. The rules that I have applied to this article do apply to all articles - if a character has its own notability, it should have its own article. (but the article must prove it - see wp:note for how). If it doesn't, it won't. There very well might be similar articles around, but existence is not proof of validity - unless an article has been assessed, it is always possible that it does not warrant its own article, but someone simply hasn't noticed yet. There are of course borderline cases, but in my experience, with zero third party references, this isn't one at the moment. I only merged these ones as I had happened to be working on the main article one day, but the way the wiki works it is simply impossible to ensure at any one time all articles meet our criteria. MickMacNee (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)