Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Havers


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Barbara Havers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable IMO, no sources. This is a character in a book, belongs on the book's page (if there is one) if anywhere. Endercase (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ^Book and BBC show. Endercase (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   06:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The_Inspector_Lynley_Mysteries is a good place for a merge IMO if it is merged and not deleted or improved. I will notify that talk page too. Endercase (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

*Delete as nom, per my above notability (uncited) argument. Endercase (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, sorry about this. Still learning, I guess the availability of sources counts as notable and encyclopedic even if not cited. I was blocked from editing or I would have withdraw earlier. I'm glad more experienced users commented on this. Endercase (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Here are some potentially useful sources on the character: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. It appears to me that this should be kept as it has received coverage, but I will leave that up to other more experienced users. Aoba47 (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you add those sources to the article I would likely change my !vote to move or merge. As it is I don't think we should have an article for every character in a notable series or book, particularly when those articles are not cited. A long time ago sub-pages were used for such things. I also have a issue with the current article name as it suggest this is a BLP or historical person. I would suggest if kept on it's own it be moved to Barbara Havers (The Inspector Lynley Mysteries series) or something similar. Additionally, the article if kept should internally link to both the TV show and the Book series IMO. Endercase (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I unfortunately do not have the time to add these sources to the article. If you believe that these sources prove notability enough to change your vote, then I should not have to add the sources to the article for you to change your vote as I have already contributed the links to the discussion for the future use by other editors. I respectfully disagree with your suggestion to move the page to a different title. If there is no other article named Barbara Havers, then the article title is appropriate as it currently stands. There are plenty of articles about fictional characters that do not have a disambiguation (for instance, here is an article that I spent a lot of time working on Eve Russell.) The lead should immediately clarify that this character is a work of fiction to avoid the issue that you raise above. Again, I will leave this up to more experienced users as I am going to focus more on article creation and expansion and slowly phase out of participating in AfD discussions. Thank you for your response! Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sources found by Aoba47 seem sufficient, I just looked at first 3 and the second one seems to be an entire entry (at least half a page, then preview ends) in 'Mystery Women, Volume Two (Revised): An Encyclopedia of Leading Women Characters in Mystery Fiction: 1980-1992'. If she is good enough for a specialized encyclopedia, plus other sources seem to be the literary analysis, meaning it is not just in-universe fictional biography, she is good enough for us. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep My cursory search also turns up a lot of sources, GNG clearly met. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2017 (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.