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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Pure fancruft. Unsourced since December 2006, in universe "biography" of a fictional character with no real world relevance. This article fails WP:FICTION, WP:V and WP:RS and any opposition to this proposal needs to address these concerns. McWomble (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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." This is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. McWomble (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Maria Jackson 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. _TalkIslander 13:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• I think you'll find they are ;). They're certainly counted as such on the Doctor Who articles. _TalkIslander 13:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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) 13:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. _TalkIslander 13:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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) 13:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. _TalkIslander 13:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "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 sources and is pure primary sourced fancruft. McWomble (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Again...have you actually read the magazine? The above examples that you're decrying are examples of why it's not a fanzine--most importantly access to production documents (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. Doctor Who Magazine has been reliable in regards to all this for at least 20 years. It might not be at the same level as, say, American Journal of Physics, but it is on the same level as Discover (i.e. well-researched but not as academic). DonQuixote (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (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. _TalkIslander 14:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 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? Jessi1989 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have neutrally informed WikiProject Doctor Who about this AfD here. _TalkIslander 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
• Keep 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. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material has already been published by a reliable source. The claim for notability is wholly based on primary sources. McWomble (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not at all convinced that Radio Times 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 this review just today in the Baltimore Sun. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment - I'm sure that a few Doctor Who magazine will have articles about her. 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)[reply]
• 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) 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 • 14:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 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. Arakunem^Talk 14:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 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#PLOT. 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 15:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Smith; no change to AfD rationale. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 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. 23skidoo (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 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 subject and are Reliable Third Party sources, not being published by the BBC. SoWhy 16:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the radio times is published by the bbc. the dwm hasn't been since 2006 as far as i can tell. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, wrong. Radio Times (and DWM in the past) are published by BBC Worldwide, a separate, commercial arm of the BBC - not the same people that make SJA. _TalkIslander 18:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to quote BBC Worldwide: "BBC Worldwide Limited is the wholly owned commercial subsidiary of the British Broadcasting Corporation". Subsidiary: "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. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete 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. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Commment There is no requirement that the article subject be the main subject of independants sources, otherwise we could not use books on the American Civil War to source Robert E Lee. Edward321 (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  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. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I do not believe the requirements for RS information "solely or primarily" about a fictional character matches consensus. This seems a WP:POINT nomination designed to take advantage of the deletionists' blocking WP:FICT. Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

are you saying that the consensus here overrides wp:v? Jessi1989 (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the least. WP:V and WP:RS have clearly been met, the only criteria in question is WP:N, especially as to whether coverage is sufficiently significant. Jclemens (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

none of the information in the article is sourced at all so how can you say that wp:v has been met? Jessi1989 (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ample coverage in independant reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 Maria, an established character now referenced in Doctor Who as well as The Sarah Jane Adventures. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.