872:. Content issues aside, Maria Jackson is a major ongoing character in a nationally broadcast television series with multiple independent sources covering it. 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.
420:, 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.
1255:. 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
889:
As per above. The fact that it might not have all the sources needed, it does not make it unnotable. But this AfD is a good thing as it notifies the people working on Doctor Who related articles about the need for more referencing. But as established below, DWM or Radio Times will have covered the
548:
isn't the issue here whether there are any sources for which maria jackson is the main subject of the source? the character has certainly been mentioned in sources discussing the tv show, but unless the focus of the article is on her character, shouldn't this be part of the tv show's article?
619:
I've never even heard of this show until just now, so maybe I have the wrong idea, but both the show article and the picture therein suggest this is one of the four main characters, so I'm inclined to think a character article is reasonable. The present article isn't even all that bad.
492:(i.e. not filled with rumours). The main magazine articles are well-researched based on that. The columns by producers and accounts by the directors are their views and comments--that is first-hand accounts of their opinions and recollections and are treated as such in the magazine.
964:: "A subsidiary, in business matters, is an entity that is controlled by a bigger and more powerful entity." if bbc worldwide is controlled by the bbc then anything published by bbc worldwide is not a secondary source regarding a program produced by the bbc.
1015:
although mentioned in multiple reliable secondary sources, i can find none for which maria jackson is the main subject. as i understand it, this means she should only be mentioned in the sarah jane adventures article and not have her own article.
526:(ec) 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.
466:
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 sources and is pure primary sourced fancruft.
1055:
oh ok, i must admit i thought there was but i can't find any policy so you're probably right. thanks :). this article doesn't appear to have any sources at the moment though, as such i am not retracting my vote just yet.
677:
and the like count as primary sources for our purposes, but that isn't a critical point anyway. A quick Google News search shows all kinds of coverage of this show and character, including international sources, such as
794:
The article needs citations, but a quick check on my part shows adequate coverage to establish notability. I concur that Radio Times and Doctor Who
Magazine are independent enough to be considered RS here.
838:
I am curious, what perspective, and particularly what minority perspective does description ofMaria
Jackson advance? You're claiming a NPOV violation, and I don't see what points of view are involved.
761:
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
1335:
991:
736:. 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.
123:
1310:
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. —
1201:- and this example is a character who has yet to hit the screen yet, so there are plenty more sources for Maria, an established character now referenced in
853:
1198:
822:
1239:
590:
1268:
720:
1077:
I do not believe the requirements for RS information "solely or primarily" about a fictional character matches consensus. This seems a
1033:
There is no requirement that the article subject be the main subject of independants sources, otherwise we could not use books on the
1320:
309:
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
90:
85:
94:
17:
829:
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. –
385:
258:
130:
Pure fancruft. Unsourced since
December 2006, in universe "biography" of a fictional character with no real world relevance.
77:
196:. Granted, this article isn't in the best of shape - mostly it needs referencing, but the references most definitely exist.
1235:
382:
318:
255:
719:
will have articles about her. There is also an SJA website, so that probsably has notes about the character too.
1369:
1209:
679:
36:
1368:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1218:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1272:
960:: "BBC Worldwide Limited is the wholly owned commercial subsidiary of the British Broadcasting Corporation".
724:
351:
rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. For all intents and purposes, it's regarded as the 'Bible' for
843:
741:
496:
has been reliable in regards to all this for at least 20 years. It might not be at the same level as, say,
262:
50:
1353:
1325:
1276:
1243:
1222:
1189:
1164:
1146:
1116:
1094:
1065:
1050:
1025:
1006:
973:
951:
921:
903:
881:
860:
847:
833:
805:
786:
745:
728:
701:
664:
639:
610:
558:
543:
515:
476:
437:
407:
372:
330:
300:
274:
225:
184:
154:
59:
484:-- Again...have you actually read the magazine? The above examples that you're decrying are examples of
1348:
1316:
1231:
246:
205:
511:
1214:
1185:
1160:
1112:
1061:
1046:
1021:
969:
917:
716:
554:
502:
242:
201:
462:. Thankyou for presenting sufficient evidence to rule out this magazine as a reliable source. See
1256:
1142:
1090:
1034:
1002:
935:
877:
839:
801:
737:
660:
594:
527:
472:
463:
421:
403:
356:
326:
284:
270:
209:
180:
150:
81:
283:
I think you'll find they are ;). They're certainly counted as such on the Doctor Who articles.
912:
the radio times is published by the bbc. the dwm hasn't been since 2006 as far as i can tell.
779:
171:—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Knowledge has already been
133:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
313:
as they are are promotional in nature or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. These
1342:
1311:
1306:
1252:
1078:
897:
814:
507:
347:
a questionable source. Have you ever even read it? It's not promotional in nature, and it
1259:
to the note that this had started - and his immediet jump to put a rather silly template
1181:
1156:
1108:
1082:
1057:
1042:
1017:
965:
913:
683:
621:
550:
1138:
1086:
998:
957:
944:
927:
873:
857:
830:
818:
796:
656:
603:
586:
536:
468:
430:
399:
365:
340:
322:
293:
266:
218:
176:
146:
73:
65:
388:. These are core Knowledge policies. A fan magazine is no more authoritative than a
1126:
1038:
768:
310:
141:
111:
1292:, et al. The assertion that these sources are not independent of the subject is
1151:
none of the information in the article is sourced at all so how can you say that
1152:
1130:
1122:
1104:
238:
197:
164:
137:
1203:
961:
892:
890:
subject and are
Reliable Third Party sources, not being published by the BBC.
1197:- Although it currently lacks sources, these can easily be found as per
389:
343:- a different arm entirely to that which makes SJA. That aside, DWM is
145:
and any opposition to this proposal needs to address these concerns.
1081:
nomination designed to take advantage of the deletionists' blocking
651:. The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge is whether material has
813:
real-world information is added to justify a separate article per
192:- Maria Jackson is a key character in a very popular spin-off of
1362:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
655:. The claim for notability is wholly based on primary sources.
173:
published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true
926:
No, wrong. Radio Times (and DWM in the past) are published by
1336:
list of
Fictional characters-related deletion discussions
418:
which adds absolutely no weight whatsoever to my argument
1300:
is an independent and reliable source on the subject of
1129:
have clearly been met, the only criteria in question is
1264:
1260:
118:
107:
103:
99:
1251:- This appears to have been stated entirely to make a
175:." This is one of Knowledge's core content policies.
1133:, especially as to whether coverage is sufficiently
992:
list of
Science fiction-related deletion discussions
934:
arm of the BBC - not the same people that make SJA.
811:Keep to merge into a new List of characters unless
1103:are you saying that the consensus here overrides
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1372:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1296:too restrictive a reading of that requirement.
1180:Ample coverage in independant reliable sources.
416:In case you hadn't noticed, I'm an admin here,
167:, "The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge is
825:(a character from the same show) implies that
8:
506:(i.e. well-researched but not as academic).
392:. Radio Times and Doctor Who Adventures are
1284:but add more real-world context from (yes)
653:already been published by a reliable source
854:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Luke Smith
1334:: This debate has been included in the
990:: This debate has been included in the
823:Rani Chandra (The Sarah Jane Adventures)
7:
355:, and is by far a reliable source.
24:
682:just today in the Baltimore Sun.
500:, but it is on the same level as
856:; no change to AfD rationale. –
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
673:I'm not at all convinced that
490:access to production documents
460:not independent of the subject
60:01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
1:
1354:22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1326:20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1277:19:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
1244:18:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
1223:14:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
1190:02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
1165:17:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1147:18:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
1117:17:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
1095:17:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
1066:17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1051:02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
1026:17:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
1007:17:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
974:17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
952:18:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
922:17:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
904:16:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
882:16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
861:18:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
848:15:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
834:15:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
806:14:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
787:14:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
746:14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
729:14:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
702:14:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
665:14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
640:14:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
611:13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
585:: I have neutrally informed
559:17:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
544:14:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
516:14:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
477:14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
452:written by the shows producer
438:13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
408:13:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
381:Please read what constitutes
373:13:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
331:13:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
301:13:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
275:13:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
226:13:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
185:11:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
155:11:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
398:independent of the subject.
498:American Journal of Physics
1389:
454:", "blow-by-blow accounts
1210:The Sarah Jane Adventures
1365:Please do not modify it.
169:verifiability, not truth
32:Please do not modify it.
448:access to to production
349:most definitely doesn't
339:Radio Times is made by
715:- I'm sure that a few
587:WikiProject Doctor Who
486:why it's not a fanzine
317:cannot be counted as
247:Doctor Who Adventures
206:Doctor Who Adventures
458:", ergo sources are
208:to name just three.
1290:Doctor Who Magazine
1121:Not in the least.
755:Doctor Who Magazine
753:The assertion that
717:Doctor Who magazine
494:Doctor Who Magazine
488:--most importantly
345:most definitely not
243:Doctor Who Magazine
202:Doctor Who Magazine
132:This article fails
1035:American Civil War
765:a main character.
464:Jenny (Doctor Who)
44:The result was
1356:
1339:
1324:
1009:
995:
803:
613:
386:secondary sources
259:secondary sources
1380:
1367:
1351:
1345:
1340:
1330:
1314:
1304:, just as, say,
1232:Peregrine Fisher
996:
986:
949:
941:
900:
895:
802:
785:
782:
776:
699:
696:
693:
690:
637:
634:
631:
628:
608:
600:
581:
541:
533:
435:
427:
370:
362:
298:
290:
265:of the subject.
223:
215:
121:
115:
97:
56:
53:
34:
1388:
1387:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1370:deletion review
1363:
1349:
1343:
1307:Tennis Magazine
1230:and improve. -
945:
942:
937:
898:
893:
780:
769:
766:
697:
694:
691:
688:
635:
632:
629:
626:
604:
601:
596:
589:about this AfD
537:
534:
529:
431:
428:
423:
366:
363:
358:
294:
291:
286:
219:
216:
211:
117:
88:
72:
69:
54:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1386:
1384:
1375:
1374:
1358:
1357:
1328:
1279:
1246:
1225:
1215:Wolf of Fenric
1192:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1155:has been met?
1098:
1097:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1010:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
936:
930:, a separate,
907:
906:
884:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
808:
789:
748:
731:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
684:Andrew Lenahan
668:
667:
643:
642:
622:Andrew Lenahan
614:
595:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
546:
528:
521:
520:
519:
518:
441:
440:
422:
411:
410:
376:
375:
357:
334:
333:
304:
303:
285:
278:
277:
229:
228:
210:
187:
128:
127:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1385:
1373:
1371:
1366:
1360:
1359:
1355:
1352:
1346:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1327:
1322:
1318:
1313:
1309:
1308:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1280:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1269:86.131.239.18
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1247:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1226:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1211:
1206:
1205:
1200:
1196:
1193:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1176:
1175:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1073:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1014:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1000:
993:
989:
985:
984:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
958:BBC Worldwide
955:
954:
953:
950:
948:
943:
940:
933:
929:
928:BBC Worldwide
925:
924:
923:
919:
915:
911:
910:
909:
908:
905:
902:
901:
896:
888:
885:
883:
879:
875:
871:
868:
862:
859:
855:
851:
850:
849:
845:
841:
840:Phil Sandifer
837:
836:
835:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
809:
807:
804:
800:
799:
793:
790:
788:
783:
777:
775:
773:
764:
760:
756:
752:
749:
747:
743:
739:
738:Phil Sandifer
735:
732:
730:
726:
722:
721:86.131.239.18
718:
714:
711:
710:
703:
700:
685:
681:
676:
672:
671:
670:
669:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
647:
646:
645:
644:
641:
638:
623:
618:
615:
612:
609:
607:
602:
599:
592:
588:
584:
580:
579:
560:
556:
552:
547:
545:
542:
540:
535:
532:
525:
524:
523:
522:
517:
513:
509:
505:
504:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
480:
479:
478:
474:
470:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
444:
443:
442:
439:
436:
434:
429:
426:
419:
415:
414:
413:
412:
409:
405:
401:
397:
396:
391:
387:
384:
380:
379:
378:
377:
374:
371:
369:
364:
361:
354:
350:
346:
342:
341:BBC Worldwide
338:
337:
336:
335:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
307:
306:
305:
302:
299:
297:
292:
289:
282:
281:
280:
279:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:
254:
253:
248:
244:
240:
236:
233:
232:
231:
230:
227:
224:
222:
217:
214:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
188:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
158:
157:
156:
152:
148:
144:
143:
139:
135:
125:
120:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:Maria Jackson
71:
70:
67:
66:Maria Jackson
64:
62:
61:
58:
57:
55:Postlethwaite
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1364:
1361:
1331:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1248:
1227:
1208:
1202:
1199:Rani Chandra
1194:
1177:
1134:
1074:
1039:Robert E Lee
1030:
1012:
987:
946:
938:
931:
891:
886:
869:
852:Answered at
826:
810:
797:
791:
771:
770:
762:
758:
754:
750:
733:
712:
687:
674:
652:
648:
625:
616:
605:
597:
582:
538:
530:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
459:
456:by directors
455:
451:
450:", "columns
447:
432:
424:
417:
394:
393:
367:
359:
352:
348:
344:
314:
295:
287:
251:
250:
234:
220:
212:
193:
189:
172:
168:
160:
131:
129:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1344:Fabrictramp
1312:Josiah Rowe
1286:Radio Times
1207:as well as
1135:significant
819:WP:NOT#PLOT
759:Radio Times
680:this review
675:Radio Times
263:independent
239:Radio Times
198:Radio Times
190:Strong Keep
1350:talk to me
1302:Doctor Who
1204:Doctor Who
1037:to source
962:Subsidiary
932:commercial
508:DonQuixote
353:Doctor Who
194:Doctor Who
134:WP:FICTION
1182:Edward321
1157:Jessi1989
1109:Jessi1989
1058:Jessi1989
1043:Edward321
1018:Jessi1989
966:Jessi1989
956:to quote
914:Jessi1989
551:Jessi1989
261:that are
163:: As per
1321:contribs
1253:WP:POINT
1240:contribs
1139:Jclemens
1087:Jclemens
1079:WP:POINT
1031:Commment
999:Dravecky
947:Islander
874:23skidoo
858:sgeureka
831:sgeureka
815:WP:UNDUE
798:Arakunem
713:Commment
657:McWomble
606:Islander
539:Islander
503:Discover
469:McWomble
433:Islander
400:McWomble
383:reliable
368:Islander
323:McWomble
319:reliable
296:Islander
267:McWomble
256:reliable
221:Islander
177:McWomble
147:McWomble
124:View log
1249:Comment
1083:WP:FICT
649:Comment
482:Comment
390:fansite
235:Comment
161:Comment
91:protect
86:history
1257:WT:WHO
1013:delete
774:dokter
446:"high
119:delete
95:delete
1127:WP:RS
315:alone
311:WP:QS
142:WP:RS
122:) – (
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
1332:Note
1317:talk
1282:Keep
1273:talk
1265:here
1263:and
1261:here
1236:talk
1228:Keep
1219:talk
1195:Keep
1186:talk
1178:Keep
1161:talk
1153:wp:v
1143:talk
1131:WP:N
1125:and
1123:WP:V
1113:talk
1105:wp:v
1091:talk
1075:Keep
1062:talk
1047:talk
1022:talk
1003:talk
988:Note
970:talk
939:Talk
918:talk
887:Keep
878:talk
870:Keep
844:talk
827:some
817:and
792:Keep
781:Talk
757:and
751:Keep
742:talk
734:Keep
725:talk
661:talk
617:Keep
598:Talk
591:here
583:Note
555:talk
531:Talk
512:talk
473:talk
425:Talk
404:talk
360:Talk
327:talk
288:Talk
271:talk
249:are
213:Talk
181:talk
165:WP:V
151:talk
140:and
138:WP:V
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
52:Ryan
46:keep
1341:--
1338:.
1298:DWM
1294:far
1238:) (
1041:.
994:.
899:Why
695:bli
633:bli
395:not
252:not
1347:|
1319:•
1288:,
1275:)
1267:.
1242:)
1221:)
1213:.
1188:)
1163:)
1145:)
1137:.
1115:)
1107:?
1093:)
1085:.
1064:)
1049:)
1024:)
1005:)
972:)
920:)
894:So
880:)
846:)
821:.
784:•
778:•
767:—
763:is
744:)
727:)
698:nd
692:ar
689:St
686:-
663:)
636:nd
630:ar
627:St
624:-
593:.
557:)
514:)
475:)
406:)
329:)
321:.
273:)
245:,
241:,
237:-
204:,
200:,
183:)
153:)
136:,
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
48:.
1323:)
1315:(
1271:(
1234:(
1217:(
1184:(
1159:(
1141:(
1111:(
1089:(
1060:(
1045:(
1020:(
1001:(
997:—
968:(
916:(
876:(
842:(
772:E
740:(
723:(
659:(
553:(
510:(
471:(
402:(
325:(
269:(
179:(
149:(
126:)
116:(
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.