Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Martin (television character)


 * 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. whether merging is an option does not require AfD. TravellingCari 21:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Martin (television character)

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

Unnotable fictional character. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Article primarily plot regurgitation, a little WP:OR, and repeats production information already included in the main article. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   —--  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 16:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Major character on a show that lasted 20 years when their were only 3 broadcast networks, although this character didn't last the whole run. It's old, so no surprise people aren't working on it.  It's going to require books, not internet searched. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Being a major character doesn't make them real world notable. If there are books, etc that specifically discuss Ruth Martin, please point them out. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep major characters in major series are appropriate subjects for articles. Actors perform shows in the real world, and how they do so is RW material, not in-universe. If one actually reads the article, one sees it has almost no plot discussion at all. Most of the material is appropriately sourced from the primary sources. Some of it does seem to represent drawing conclusions, and some further sourcing is needed.   Until people do the necessary work with print sources, a great many Wikipedia articles on many  subject areas will be imperfect. Some people would refer to  throw them out on that basis DGG (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Create List of characters in Lassie (television program) and merge. In general, I agree with the above that major characters of major television programs are notable. Since this show was pre-internet era, sources could be slow to come. Rather than have the article without third party sources, merge this to a list of characters. When/if sources appear, break it back out into a separate article. Same for Ruth Martin (television character); Timmy Martin (television character) actually looks like it may be properly sourced. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  18:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically, it would be List of Lassie characters, per TV naming conventions :) -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to either Lassie, List of Lassie characters, or Hugh Reilly . Agree that age of pre-internet notability makes sourcing difficult, but notability is possible. I did find him at fiftiesweb.com, museum.tv where the character and series are archived, at IMDB for the character and actor, timstvshowcase, lassie.net, et al.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fansites are not reliable sources, nor does being listed at IMDB speak to notability. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Major character in groundbreaking television series, established notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep/WP:Speedy keep per all other !votes. Any other editors can now feel free to perform a Non-admin closure. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two merges, not keeps so how is that speedy? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Only one "merge" now, who grants that "I agree with the above that major characters of major television programs are notable". The rest are keeps... including me.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Major character in well-documented, long-running, Emmy Award-winning, highly rated, critically acclaimed series that is now universally regarded with shows such as "The Honeymooners", "Gunsmoke", and "What's My Line?" as a 1950s television cornerstone.  It is (and always has been) aired in reruns in the US and around the world, attesting to its undying popularity and importance to world culture.  Many episodes are available on VHS and DVD.  Series enjoyed its greatest popularity and its highest ratings during character's tour of duty.  Many titles of equal and lesser note have stand-alone articles for their characters. Article is documented with sources that are freely available.  Character appeared in spinoff materials such as novels, comic books, toys, film, film posters, and lobby cards -- thus attesting to the character's popularity and ipso facto his notability. Nothing in WP policy states a subject MUST be referenced in tertiary sources such as univeristy journals.  While such sources are desireable, they are not required. If that were the case, WP would lose 98% of its content.  Primary and secondary sources are enough for inclusion at WP -- and "Paul Martin" has both.  ItsLassieTime (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All of that speaks to the series notability, which is not in question. The notability of the character of Paul Martin is what is being questioned. Appearing in the novelizations for the series does NOT equate to notability. If that were the case, the every last character from the series would be notable as almost all of the regulars appeared in one or more of the novels. --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop changing your reply hours after someone has answered. "Nothing in WP policy states a subject MUST be referenced in tertiary sources"...really? Well, I guess technically WP:N is a guidelines, but yeah, it does say the subject must be discussed in secondary sources, which no one has shown any evidence that this character is discussed in yet. Only primary sources (which includes all forms of media for the series and official publications tied to it). Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping any article. Many many more have been deleted or merged. --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 08:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the problem here and why this article is up for deletion when it has sources establishing notability for inclusion at WP??? Primary source: TV episodes, novels, comic books, etc. Secondary source: Ace Collins' "Lassie: a dog's life"; Penguin Books, 1993. Collins' book is not an "official publication tied to the show" (which would make it a primary source) but a secondary source independent of the subject. Even if the book was tied to the show, I'm not sure it would ipso facto be disqualified as a source for subject notability or article inclusion. WP asks use to use common sense and discrimination. ItsLassieTime (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is up for deletion becuase it does NOT use secondary publications. Ace Collins is the official Lassie historian, making it a primary source. And even if one decides it is a secondary source, a SINGLE source does not equal SIGNIFICANT coverage. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ace Collins was NOT Lassie's "official historian" when the Penguin Book was published in 1993, and so the Penguin publication is a secondary source. And even if he was, that does not disquality the book from being cited as a source. WP asks us to use common sense, discrimination, and good judgement.  The article should KEEP as additional secondary sources and tertiary sources are acquired. ItsLassieTime (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Two secondary sources have recently been referenced and noted: a "Jack and Jill" article from 1959, a "TV Guide" article from 1959, and Lassie collectibles book from 2005. The WP article Paul Martin (television character) now sports 1 primary source (TV episodes), 4 secondary sources, and 1 tertiary source. ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Jack and Jill article references the characters being his adoptive parents, a fact already stated in the show itself. The TV guide article is about the reduction in roles for two OTHER characters, NOT the character of Paul Martin. And the price guide only repeats whats in the main article, that the Lassie series spawned books and what not. You haven't added any actual references about PAUL MARTIN. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They are SS. They have no relation to nor a vested interest in the show and are authored by third parties. The Jack and Jill article confirms information and is a secondary source. The TV guide article speaks to the dismissal of other male characters on the show and the WHY, which relates to the character of Paul Martin.   Characters were dropped in order to bring PAUL MARTIN to the fore. It is Significant Coverage re: Paul Martin and brings new information to the article not found elsewhere. The Collectible book references Paul Martin. It's a secondary source and is not disqualified because it is referenced in other articles.   ItsLassieTime (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you deliberately misinterpreting everything I say? I did not say they weren't valid sources. I said they do NOT speak to the notability of the character as they do NOT speak significantly about the character. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP Snowball Keep/WP:Speedy keep Major characters in major series are notable. Notability is established. Article is sourced appropriately per WikiP with primary and secondary sources. Appears author has taken care to support statements with exact references to specific episodes. Good work! IndianCaverns (talk) 01:38, 5 October 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.