Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Smith


 * 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. BJ Talk 00:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Luke Smith

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Pure fancruft. Unsourced since November 2007, in universe "biography" of a fictional character with no real world relevance. Editors repeatedly claim that notability has been established on the talk page but fail to cite any reliable sources in the article to back this up. This article fails WP:FICTION, WP:V and WP:RS and any opposition to this proposal needs to address these concerns. McWomble (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: As per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." McWomble (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: not notable and no sources.--Grahame (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as wholly constitutive of primarily sourced plot with no evidence of having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 13:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Luke Smith is a key character in a very popular spin-off of Doctor Who. Granted, this article isn't in the best of shape - mostly it needs referencing, but the references most definitely exist. Radio Times, Doctor Who Magazine, Doctor Who Adventures to name just three. Talk Islander 13:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Radio Times, Doctor Who Magazine, Doctor Who Adventures are not reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. McWomble (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find they are ;). They're certainly counted as such on the Doctor Who articles. Talk Islander 13:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Radio Times is not independent of the subject. SJA is made by the BBC, Radio Times is published by the BBC. The DW publications are WP:QS as they are are promotional in nature or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. These alone cannot be counted as reliable. McWomble (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Radio Times is made by BBC Worldwide - a different arm entirely to that which makes SJA. That aside, DWM is most definitely not a questionable source. Have you ever even read it? It's not promotional in nature, and it most definitely doesn't rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. For all intents and purposes, it's regarded as the 'Bible' for Doctor Who, and is by far a reliable source. Talk Islander 13:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read what constitutes reliable secondary sources. These are core Wikipedia policies. A fan magazine is no more authoritative than a fansite. Radio Times and Doctor Who Adventures are not independent of the subject. McWomble (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In case you hadn't noticed, I'm an admin here, which adds absolutely no weight whatsoever to my argument, but does show that I'm aware of the policies that you're pointing out to me ;). Back to the argument, since when is a magazine that has high access to to production, which has columns written by the shows producer, which has blow-by-blow accounts by directors a "fan magazine"? This isn't your run-of-the-mill "lolz Who is fantastic!" fancruft magazine, like I said, it's pretty much the definitive source for Doctor Who. Talk Islander 13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "high access to to production", "columns written by the shows producer", "blow-by-blow accounts by directors", ergo sources are not independent of the subject. Thankyou for presenting sufficient evidence to rule out this magazine as a reliable source. See Jenny (Doctor Who) for an example of a minor character with reliably sourced information. Yes it has primary sources and cites the BBC, but it also cites multiple independent sources. This article cites NO independent sources and is pure primary sourced fancruft. McWomble (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, you've got a set idea as to the value of RT and DWM, and nothing on Earth I could say will change that. I've stated my stance on the matter; others below clearly agree with me. We'll just have to see how this discussion pans out. Talk Islander 14:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Ok, you're confusing "not independent of the source" and "access to the source". Doctor Who Magazine is independent of the source to the extent that the BBC does not dictate what they can write about (the magazine can suddenly start writing about Star Trek a la DWB).  It is also independent in that it can publish negative reviews of franchise-related merchandise (DVDs, CDs, novels, etc.). Its reliability is helped by its access to source documents--that is they can write and published well-researched articles.  Please do your homework before dismissing a well-known reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: I have neutrally informed WikiProject Doctor Who about this AfD here. Talk Islander  13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm pretty sure that a few artiles in Doctor Who Magazine deal with this character - he was interviewed as part of the recent series finale. There is also an SJA website, so that probsably has notes about the character too. 86.131.239.18 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The assertion that Doctor Who Magazine and Radio Times are unreliable sources is quite wrong; DWM operates indepentently and has gained a worthy reputation. The same goes for Radio Times. They both provide objective information. As for notability; he is a main character. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I cannot imagine that a regular character on a show in the Doctor Who universe does not have enough interviews, reviews of episodes, or other secondary sources to meet WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deja Vu! The article needs better and more citations, but another quick check on my part shows adequate coverage to establish notability. I again concur that Radio Times and Doctor Who Magazine are independent enough to be considered RS here. Arakunem Talk 14:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep to merge into a new List of characters unless real-world information is added to justify a separate article per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT. Rani Chandra (The Sarah Jane Adventures) (a character from the same show) implies that some sources exist for a half-decent article, but I am not sure it's a enough to make it full-decent and avoid a merger forever. – sgeureka t•c 15:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am curious, what perspective, and particularly what minority perspective does description of Luke Smith advance? You're claiming a NPOV violation, and I don't see what points of view are involved. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am claiming UNDUE violation, which just happens to part of of the NPOV policy like SYNTH and PSTS are part of OR (without necessarily being a violation of original research) or ONEEVENT is part of BLP (without necessarily being a violation of anything said in the BLP intro). Thus, I do not claim an NPOV violation, or I would have said so. I should probably also have cited WP:WAF, which in turn links to UNDUE. (Since you have started copy-pasting this question everywhere, I'll start copy-pasting my answer everytime you'll ask me this question.) – sgeureka t•c 15:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * UNDUE still talks exclusively about viewpoints. I am wondering what the viewpoint you see as getting undue weight is. If there is no viewpoint, there is no UNDUE violation. As for WAF, you get closer - there may well be an issue about appropriate levels of coverage. But that issue is not a violation of a core content policy. If WP:WAF is taking UNDUE to cover more than viewpoints then it is flatly contradicted by the actual policy page it cites. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll keep it in mind to write it out as UNDUEWEIGHT of plot (all) versus sourced real-world information (none) the next time. Should you believe the article already puts just the right amount of weight on plot, I'll happily cite WP:NOT exclusively and will change my !vote accordingly. – sgeureka t•c 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that no policy page on undue weight addresses anything like this situation - WAF's use of UNDUE is wholly inconsistent with the policy. NOT#PLOT is a better argument, but even that seems to me tricky - "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." This page is clearly part of the larger coverage of the fictional work. The question thus becomes whether it is concise. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Content issues aside, Luke Smith is a major ongoing character in a nationally broadcast television series with multiple independent sources covering it; he is also a crossover character appearing in one other major series (as a guest star). Therefore I find this topic to be viable. DWM and Radio Times alone are sufficient sources but there are others that can be added. I would also like to state here I found McWomble's post to the Doctor Who Wikiproject regarding this AFD to be unnecessary and offensive. 23skidoo (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasoning is the same as with Articles for deletion/Maria Jackson. To 23skidoo, I think you should not criticize the nominator's actions here but at most on his/her talk page. This is a forum for content discussion and it does tell us, even if keeping is likely, to add references :-)  So Why  16:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per SoWhy (i.e., I said my peace on this at the other AfD) Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * delete same as Articles for deletion/Maria Jackson. the character is mentioned in reliable sources but i can see no reliable source for which he is the main subject. as such this should be included in the article about the tv show, the character should not have its own article. Jessi1989 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as this character is a main character on The Sarah Jane Adventures and has crossed over to Doctor Who in the episodes "The Stolen Earth" and "Journey's End". LA (T) @ 22:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeep and improve. I take it that these DW mags are not freely available on line? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Nope, they're subscription magazines, or purchasable from all good retailers ;P Talk Islander 07:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although it currently lacks sources, these can easily be found as per Rani Chandra - and this example is a character who has yet to hit the screen yet, so there are plenty more sources for Luke, an established character now referenced and seen in Doctor Who as well as The Sarah Jane Adventures. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Didn't we already go over this for Doctor Who Universe charecters/companions?. This character is among the major cast (not a recurring supporting character or a one off, but is the actor portraying this character is second billed in the show's credits) on a popular television show and also appeared on two episodes of Doctor Who.  Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 17:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - This appears to have been stated entirely to make a WP:POINT. Looking through his contributions, he has started articles on some thing to do with the wombles (and been told that those are not notable) - and looking though the history of his (blanked) talk page reveals that an unknown IP has concerms that he is a sock puppet.  Given that he is clearly overemphasising wikipedia rules I think these should be looked at.  Just look at his reply on WT:WHO to the note that this had started - and his immediet jump to put a rather silly template here and here. 86.131.239.18 (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but add more real-world context from (yes) Radio Times, Doctor Who Magazine, et al. The assertion that these sources are not independent of the subject is far too restrictive a reading of that requirement.  DWM is an independent and reliable source on the subject of Doctor Who, just as, say, Tennis Magazine is an independent and reliable source on the subject of tennis, despite having links to the Association of Tennis Professionals and other professional tennis organizations. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (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.