Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silence (Doctor Who)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Although there were several merge !votes, there was no consensus to delete this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silence (Doctor Who)[edit]

Silence (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced pile of speculation and original research without the vaguest hint of notability. I am really shocked to find a sci-fi-related article in this sort of state...
Meanwhile, SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) deleted the PROD-tag because the article "can easily be sourced" – not that they have done so, and I anyway dispute that the drivelly original research contained within can be adequately referenced. Furthermore, Sarek 'forgot' to address the issue of notability, also 'forgetting' to be responsible and add an {{unreferenced}} tag. How unfortunate. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 17:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What TT is saying, rather indirectly, is that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions suggests that subjective importance (or unimportance) is not a useful argument in deletion discussions. It's a very useful essay, more people should read it. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I do apologise!!!--SGCommand 21:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here's The Guardian[1] and The Daily Mail[2]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not "significant coverage." I could count the words of that referring to the Silence on the fingers of one toe. The Daily Mail is similarly scratching-the-surface-but-not-being-significant. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 18:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I presume "fingers of one toe" is a periphrasis for "zero"? That count seems to be wrong. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was a slightly sarcastic and tremendously humourous version of the common idiom, "...on the fingers of one hand." ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 18:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the two sources above indicate, it is now notable as part of the franchise and the new major villain for the series. The Daily Mail article seems to deal almost exclusively with the new creature. Heiro 19:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is now notable as part of the franchise and the new major villain for the series. I linked to WP:NOTINHERITED above. Why didn't you click that link? You may have found it instructive. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 19:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—this is yet another 'reference' which contains utterly insignificant coverage: literally the only mention of them is, "I think The Silence are one of the ­scariest monsters. I love that they've been working since the dawn of time to make The Doctor come unstuck," he said. It's pathetic. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 19:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a citation verifying an assertion that was already in the article. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But it does nothing to advance the subject's notability, which was my point. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 19:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't about notability, which was mine. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, such vehemence over a Dr. Who article. If the Daily Mail does an entire article about the subject, clearly seems notable. Try arguing without the invective, might have a better chance, although this seems to heading for snow close territory if you ask me.Heiro 19:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, such vehemence over a Dr. Who article. Not helpful. If the Daily Mail does an entire article about the subject, clearly seems notable. It didn't look to me as if the entire article was about them. It was quite wide-ranging. Try arguing without the invective. Try not making fallacious arguments thus alleviating the necessity for me to employ rhetorical devices. This seems to heading for snow close territory – do a Ctrl+F for MythArc and tell me once again that this should be snow-closed. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 19:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not you choose to call them "rhetorical devices", some of your comments are personal attacks which are disruptive to the discussion. Please stop. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, your vehemence and rhetorical devices are not helpful. As for Daily Mail article, the first 1/2 or so of the text is almost exclusively about the Silence, the remainder is a general overview of the Drs past adversaries in general and and their effect on the public, i.e. the scariness. With the general mentions in the other sources so far, still clearly seem notable. Heiro
    The remainder [of the article] is a general overview of the Drs past adversaries in general – so why did you say that the Daily Mail did "an entire article about the subject" then? ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 20:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough coverage exists, and the series is of sufficient interest and importance, to make the subject worthy of note here, although a merge to Doctor Who (series 6) may be in order until there's more on which to base an article.--Michig (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could list which particular sources you feel that enough coverage exists? (And I wouldn't object hugely to a merge if needs must.) ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 20:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- sufficient coverage that the GNG is met. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could list which particular sources you feel that enough coverage exists? ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 20:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could read that section you linked to again and explain to the rest of us why all of the sources so far provided do not meet the GNG?Heiro
    I have made eighteen comments on this page explaining why the various sources do not provide adequate coverage. The sources must "address the subject directly in detail." One-sentence throwaway lines such as, "zomg their so scaree innit," which is more or less the sole extent of this news article – they just don't cut it. The other stuff provided thus far is equally dismal, as I have explained point-by-point above. I suggest you read over what I've written; it's gripping stuff. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So this from the article mentined above:
is just a small throw away line? Please, getting cold in here? Whats that white stuff? Heiro 21:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think that that constitutes enough "significant coverage," and that it "addresses the subject directly in detail," thus forming the basis for an article, then I don't agree with you, no. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 21:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whats wrong, that big block of text in quotes linked to the article get in the way of your train of thought? Heiro 22:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, admittedly the large label I put which read [extended copyright violation redacted] did rather rely on its recipient being literate in order to be effective. And I can't think of any other explanation for you asking the above question if you'd read it. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 22:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats ok, he who shouts loudest must have the winning argument. Just look how many agree with you so far. Heiro 22:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well-crafted. Have you ever considered going into the comedy business? Or into the inserting-completely-pointless-and-utterly-irrelevant-bickering-disruptively-into-deletion-discussions business? ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 22:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't want your job, thanks. Heiro 22:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't want your face thanks. (I don't know which of us is going to get reported to ANI first but it's quite a stimulating guessing-game!) ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 22:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Who knows, guesses are for grabs. Maybe I should go do something productive for the day and let you get back to arguing with the others here for awhile.Heiro 22:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, because Wikiquette alerts is known for inciting swift, decisive action in the same way that ANI is... oh wait a minute... ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 22:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep slightly premature creation, but seeing as it's there it can be improved and expanded as the series goes on. U-Mos (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh come on, I know you understand WP:NOTE. 'Premature' and 'can be improved' are neither here nor there. Does it have significant coverage in third-party reliable sources? ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 21:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me put it a better way. I don't think it needed to be created quite yet. But what is there has been talked about (in a pre-broadcast "they're the scariest monsters EVER" sort of way) in numerous third-party sources. And it won't be long before there's a lot more to say and source. U-Mos (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, maybe you don't understand WP:NOTE. If an article is not notable, it should be deleted. If it subsequently becomes notable, it can always be recreated. Living somewhere in the UK, right now, is a 4-year-old who will one day become Prime Minister. They'll be notable then. So let's create the article now! Or not. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 21:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is notable now. What part of WP:NOTE is it failing exactly? U-Mos (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is completely beyond me why people don't read the discussion rather than asking questions which could obviously be answered if they read the discussion. (Hint—read the discussion.) ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 22:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have. You may not consider the coverage significant, but I and apparently a lot of other people here do. U-Mos (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So your question immediately above was pointless then? ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 22:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I just slightly misunderstood your comments. U-Mos (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just a reminder from WP:NRVE: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is admittedly a fair-ish point, but in the case of an ongoing popular TV show, the vast majority of coverage will be online and accessible easily, and if the above is the result of a Google search then it's a pretty sorry lot. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 21:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So do you want to keep arguing or get this solved?[edit]

I agree that Treasury may not have had the most perfect attitude in his comments here, but you can easily solve the whole debate by moving the small amount of content into the article 'List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens‎'. Notability no longer matters, because the entire article is what requires notability, not sections. I did try to go ahead and do this (it was reverted...twice), but if all of you would rather argue longer, we can just have a longer argument...... thoughts? -- Avanu (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm happy to withdraw this deletion nomination if the article is redirected as Avanu suggests. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 22:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd accept a re-direct for the time being. U-Mos (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens, not notable. Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG (the first reference doesn't count towards notability). –anemoneprojectors– 00:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, do not merge. Clearly notable -- there's enough to meet the GNG now, and it will only keep flowing in over the next weeks/months. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, A new race of aliens of Doctor Who, while it may be a bit of crystal balling, I'm pretty sure with every other race it will soon have toys in the shop and people dressing as them for Halloween. Mathewignash (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're another one of these people who haven't read WP:GNG. Allow me to quote two versions, and you can guess which one is the real text: "If a topic is something that is available in shops, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list," and, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Which is the genuine notability standard? ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 08:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens, where it can be worked on and split off (following discussion) when it looks like notability can be demonstrated. One thing to do that should also be included there is "Silence will fall", a prediction that ran through the previous series but is clearly designed to be resolved here. I imagine there will be more sources that can be dug up to track that too. (Emperor (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge for now. While everyone seems to believe that these characters are going to be huge, at present they have appeared in ONE EPISODE with some ambiguous mentions in the previous season. If they become a major race, like the Daleks, etc. that are notable enough to have their own page, then they will get their own page THEN. Doing so now is premature. JRP (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - you know that if we merge it we will be keeping it too... so the comments for 'Keep' don't really argue against merging it too. -- Avanu (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me qualify my keep above to include do not merge, notability has been established above and will only increase from here. Heiro 02:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is per Sarek, Heiro. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment—this editor has already 'voted' above. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 08:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for reminding me of that. Since this appears to be a new question, namely keep vs merge, as opposed to the keep vs delete discussion above, I was indicating that my "keep" was a "keep as is" rather than a "keep or merge" !vote. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A move prompted no doubt by the same reasoning as my clarification above, that a user who appeared to be not happy with the number of keeps decided they might also qualify as a merge vote. Heiro 09:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually a fairly standard convention on AfD discussions that those favouring 'keep' are usually not as averse to a merge as to deletion. It's not just "a user who appeared to be not happy with the number of keeps" making a lone decision, so please don't allege that sort of thing. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 09:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is common practice to take my !vote as something other than what I stated it to be? That's convenient. As for the alleged personal attack, if it is seen as such, I apologize and strike through it. I did not mean to succumb to the general WP:BATTLEfield mentality creeping into this page. I'll retire from the page, you win. Taking it off my watchlist. Heiro 09:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's a common (and completely reasonable) convention to assume that people who want the article kept would, as a second preference, have it merged rather than deleted. This should be obvious to a semi-lobotomised chimpanzee, let alone to somebody of your intelligence. If you wish to withdraw from the discussion then I certainly won't try to persuade you otherwise. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 10:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You can probably make such points without having to mention those poor semi-lobotomised chimpanzees. They don't even get the benefit of a completed lobotomy. And since I've had several conversations with such creatures, I really can say this sort of stuff isn't that obvious to them (of course, they continually called me names and force fed me mashed bananas, but that might have just been them being sociable). -- Avanu (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Doctor Who List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens article per JRP and several others above. There's simply not enough "quality" content there at this time for a stand-alone article. If/When it's been written to a higher level of quality with respective references to reliable resources then it could be moved back out to article space. (try the article incubator or work on it in user space.) I also wouldn't be opposed to leaving a redirect behind in the merge wake. Comment to a few folks up above who are getting so snippy about the whole thing ... Knock it off, NOW please. We're here to improve the project, this type of bickering should be beneath the users here. Try working together rather than wasting time butting heads. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  07:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of... - while they may yet be important and there may be much to come at the moment we have a bit of a news spike going on. So far very little is yet known (the BBC website only gives them a few paragraphs on the Silence) and excluding the unsourced speculation in this article leaves very little of quality. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject looks like it meets the WP:GNG, when you look at sources like this, this, and this, which are all exclusively about the Silence. SilverserenC 09:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Daily Mail article is, as you must be aware having read the whole discussion above, not exclusively about the Silence. Hence the Daleks etc. The other two are extremely short pieces with the actors basically saying, "im scared of thes gr8 monstrs lmfao," over two or three one-sentence paragraphs, which I politely suggest doesn't count as "directly addressing the subject in detail" at all. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 09:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The GNG neither 1) requires wholly-dedicated articles to the subject, only that the secondary sources talk about the topic in depth and not just in passing: the Daily Mail article clearly qualifies as one possible secondary source (mind you , the GNG requires multiple sources, so this one source alone won't cut it, but no way is it invalidated as a source - it describes inspiration and production aspects of the creatures) and 2) is not an objective measure; if the consensus believes it to be notable based on a two-line mention in a review despite all evidence to the contrary, the article should be kept. That's why we have AFD, to challenge subjectively, not objectively. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The GNG neither 1) requires wholly-dedicated articles to the subject. I hope you're not suggesting that I made this claim. Silver seren (talk · contribs) said that the article was solely about the Silence. I pointed out that this was not true. I never said that this automatically barred it from being significant coverage. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 13:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    True, you're correct, but at the same time you sounded dismissive of it. As long as its agreed its one valid secondary source for the GNG, that's the important part. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Silence will eventually become a full article as the revived Series 6 goes forth. Let's clean it up and let time pass. The article will evolve. There is no need to delete this only to have to create a new one in 4 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Er yes there is, like if it doesn't currently meet our general notability guideline. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 09:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources provided demonstrate notability. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy in which we strive to keep such sourced content. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As being a notable major story arc beyond just a listable alien (if they are aliens). Collect (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whilst the GNG is met by third party sources about them may be discussing the context of all Dr Who monsters this is simply because the details about them are limited at the moment. As the episodes progress and more detail is revealed we can presume that like all major story arcs and aliens of the series there will be substantial reliable sourcing about them. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "We can presume" – perhaps you could point me to the section of WP:GNG which has provision for letting articles stand on the basis that they'll probably maybe become notable in the future? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 13:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I never claimed it would "become notable in the future" I claimed that it already met the GNG as they are the main subject on the few sources that already exist and I also claimed that the we can presume that further sources will be found to improve the article. In fact to extend that - I expect that because facts are so few at the moment that substantial sources to improve the article will exist after 7pm (BST) on Saturday and since this AFD won't close until at least 5pm (UTC) on Sunday any arguments made on notability now will need to be re assessed after that time making the whole AfD at this time a little pointy. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominating this article for deletion was in no way POINTy, and with that false allegation I am not prepared to respond to the rest of your (pretty poor) comment above. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 20:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that you weren't aware that coverage of the subject would increase over the period of the AfD given that a second episode covering subject and giving sources more detail to work with would occur within 6 days of the start of the AfD? Or are you saying that you were not aware that as a subject which was unfolding and subject to substantial change over a (relatively) short period of time it could reasonably be covered under WP:BREAKING (as both the unveiling of the new enemy and the start of the new series are being treated as a breaking event by the press) and should have followed the recommendation to " delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary" (in this case a 9 or 10 day delay seems appropriate)? If you weren't aware of either of these, then I would retract the claim of pointedness but it seems highly unlikely for someone who specifically records Doctor Who episodes as a field they concentrate their editing in that you wouldn't at least be aware of the first. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that it is a WP:POINT violation to nominate an article for deletion even if it is possible that the reason for deletion may be alleviated before the scheduled end of the discussion, then you are simply wrong, and that is all there is to it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 14:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    you are simply wrong, and that is all there is to it. - Of course, I must have missed the policy that says "For the avoidance of doubt, TreasuryTag's interpretation of Policy always overrides that of any other editor or consensus of editors...." Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - they are only named on the BBC website but discussed as plot elements elsewhere. I'll pay that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ECx1)Merge & Redirect - Yeah, it's great if we have information in the future about this Monster series, but for the time being we don't. It's likeley that we'll have info in the future, so merge the current content to the "List of Aliens (Doctor Who)" and redirect the article. Hasteur (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect as per the above at this time, with an option to expand later as needed. umrguy42 14:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this a new question, then I vote for a Strong Keep--SGCommand 16:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to closing admin—this editor has already 'voted' above. Comment to above editor—you probably ought to read WP:NOREASON and WP:VOTE soon-ish. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 16:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As a result of Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus' comments above, I was also changing my vote to Keep rather than Merge -- SGCommand
    You still haven't read WP:VOTE I see? ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 16:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Still doesn't change my Vote-SGCommand
    *sigh* Whatever. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll read 'em when I have some time, OK?--SGCommand 17:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as current notability has not been demonstrated. No prejudice against reinstating it if and when decent sources appear. Currently does not meet GNG. --John (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Until and unless it becomes more notable. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- If we're talking merge, it would make sense (at least to me) to close the AFD. Merge discussions can be hashed out on the talk page, after all. If not, an oppose merge, there's enough there for a stand-alone article even now, and there will only be more as the series progresses. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think enough 3rd party sources have been satisfy their notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge at least for now. Keep as IAR on CRYSTAL/GNG. There are short RS mentions, but the whole RS mentions are almost news WP:EVENT. Many fictional works have alien races, this one only got the spotlight as being introduced in the new season of a popular series. WP:WAF. If and when material from real-world perspective appears (development, reception, etc.), then split off. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't IAR core content policies without more explanation than just saying 'IAR' and leaving it to the imagination. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 11:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did elaborate below. Ordinarily, I would say merge. But, since the topic will receive more coverage (WP:CRYSTAL) and will have more than short mentions (WP:GNG criteria), then I said IAR and don't merge now to split off later. I usually don't hold this opinion in AfDs, and argue for merging, but in this case the GNG will soon be met (season just started). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it does more than I thought it did. "The Silence was inspired by Munch's The Scream .. Their look has been carefully created for maximum scare-factor .. The suits, in particular, are a nod to the Men In Black movies .. Made from Latex foam, the hands .." The rest is just a hype-building filler with comparisons, etc. Well, I guess I share the same sentiment with the keep below, of this eventually getting more coverage and ending up as a separate article anyway. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my opinion, some of the worst AFDs are ones that attempt to delete something that we'll almost certainly need an article on within the immediate future. I could give two shits about Dr. Who, but it's clear that this is going to be a recurring (probably season-long) nemesis, and the present sourcing is adequate for now. Yes, it will need monitoring to keep fan speculation at bay, but the same can be said for myriad pop-culture articles and is never cause for outright deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per Starblind. There's a strong case that the article creation was premature, but there appears to be a sufficiency of secondary sources to establish at least bordeline notability, and a virtual certainty that more will appear. Better to keep the article now and reconsider the case for deletion in early June when the show goes on hiatus than delete/merge it now and recreate it in a month or two. There's also a reasonable case that the AfD is premature since next Saturday's episode is going to clarify how significant the Silence are within the show, and hence the potential of the article. Depending on how Saturday's episode turns out, I might change to merge, but the current evidence suggests that there will be sufficient content to support a quality articleby mid-June at the latest. 86.161.70.55 (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can an uninvolved admin please close this AfD? I think the acrimony is not worth continued expenditure of time given the result. Folks can then move onto better things to do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's scheduled to end on Sunday and I'm not aware of any provision for the early closure of an AfD in any circumstances other than WP:SNOW, which doesn't apply in this case because there's a sizeable clamouring for the article to be merged and redirected. I've just done a quick search for policy on this topic, and haven't found any, but there was a case a couple of years ago in which a consensus was reached that, "Except in certain specific circumstances (a clear – as in very clear – WP:SNOW situation, a withdrawn nom and no real !delete votes left, etc.) AfDs should simply never be closed early," and that, "As long as there is activity and that there isn't an obvious snow, then an AfD should stay up for 7 days." ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 14:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (snaps fingers) gosh darn, you got me there. okay, will wait till Sunday to see the result. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Starblind. I am somewhat taken aback about the relatively juvenile reactions on both sides. Personal attacks are never appropriate, nor is getting bent out of shape because a AfD is not going your way. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 19:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Falerin, Sarek, et al --Joe Sewell (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources cited in article establish notability, in my view.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into "creatures and aliens". Just now it's only one story. One story does not give automatic notability. If they do get a bigger role, then perhaps an article is warranted, but not just now. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whilst they may have only appeared in one episode so far, the entire fifth season was manipulated by this alien (the cracks in the universe, the explosion of the TARDIS, their spaceship above the Lodger's house, the many references to "Silence will fall" etc. E1tiger (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is not whether "the entire fifth season was manipulated by this alien" but whether the subject is notable. Your comment doesn't address this in any way. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 13:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    SO by your rationale, should the similar article on the Weeping Angels be removed too? E1tiger (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'M sorry, I don't engage in WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 13:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sources listed are adequate to meet WP:GNG, albeit barely. If not, then merge and redirect to List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens. Deletion would be inappropriate, even if not quite notable enough, given that an appropriate redirect target exists. Rlendog (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This entire situation has just turned into a rampaging mess[edit]

  • Revert to redirect I'm actually vaguely embarrassed that it has blown so out of proportion. Thusfar, we only have a single episode worth of information about this species and not even information as such, more speculation than hard facts. The page can always be recreated when further information comes along (as I'm sure it will) and I or someone else can re-upload the picture. I move to have the page redirected until such time as there is more info to make a well fleshed-out article. I realize the article isn't mine, per se, but a redirect isn't the same as a deletion: it can always be reverted to an article. HalfShadow 18:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remainder of off topic discussion translocated to the talk page. Use it! Hasteur (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to list of Doctor Who aliens with the possibility of creating a full article later. Compare, for example, List of Torchwood characters#John Hart. The amount of sources it has is just enough to make it a nice section of a larger article, but not in such a state as to justify its own article. What is it's impact? How has it been received? What is the critical analysis? There isn't any yet. Also compare List of Glee characters; most get substantial coverage from first appearance, actors are interviewed etc., but none of that translates at the first instance into immediate cultural (encyclopedic?!) notability. None of the keep arguments have been convincing so far, I'm afraid. (Dear closing editor: they mostly ought to not be counted; cf. truthiness, to be avoided.)~ZytheTalk to me! 23:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, as it passes the notability guideline, if only barely. Consider Merging into List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens at a later date; basically, while they may technically be 'notable' by our standards, it's not yet clear if this fictional race is important enough to justify a separate article. If it turns out that they're not, we can always merge and redirect the article, as there is no deadline. Trout-slap everyone above who's been taking this discussion too seriously: guys, this is an argument over whether a fictional alien race in a science fiction TV show should have an article or not. It is not the most important thing on Wikipedia, and it is not worth getting angry about. Robofish (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I might have !voted Merge except for the tone of the deletion request. It's going to become a much larger and better article, I suspect, over the next season. htom (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I might have !voted Merge except for the tone of the deletion request. I think you're supposed to !vote based on the merits of the article rather than to spite the nominator, no? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes I, too, succumb to temptation, what else can I say? Sorry. htom (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, your !vote will be ignored by the closing admin, so I guess it doesn't matter that much... ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 07:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter so much as there are plenty more of them, so one more shouldn't matter one way or the other really. Keeps 26, Merges 13 currently, wow this is a fun AfD. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible to be factually correct but be so abrasive about it that people have a hard time agreeing with you. Why not just stop poking at everyone and let the community decide? Your conduct here has not helped your case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The coverage in the Guardian already mentioned by others, counts as notable coverage. And TreasuryTag, please stop being so rude and hostile to everyone else. You don't consider it notable coverage, but others do. Consensus seems to be that it is significant enough to prove notability. Dream Focus 08:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens. So far they have only appeared in one storyline and I feel it's just too early for a stand-alone article right now. If they become recurring characters (like the Ood or the Weeping Angels), then the article can be easily recreated. —BETTIA— talk 08:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, neither the Ood or the Weeping Angels were ever the main villains of an entire season (technically two). The Silence are, which is why they have received so much coverage already just from one episode having aired. They are already confirmed that they are going to be around for the entire season, because they are the lead-up villains that were continually mentioned in Season 5. SilverserenC 08:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens, despite the tone of the deletion request and the discussion. I don't personally think that the Guardian article is significant coverage; no doubt there will be a lot of future coverage if these monsters are in fact going to be the main villains of the season, but recreating the article once the coverage exists is not going to be a big deal. That may be as early as next week, perhaps, but until the sources are there, this ought to be merged. --bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't a Guardian reference in the article, so i'm not sure what you're referring to, but are you saying that this, this, and this aren't significant coverage? 19:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Apologies for being unclear. A Guardian article was discussed above on this page - here it is. I don't feel that this is a particularly important matter, to be perfectly honest; it seems the article will stay and that doesn't bother me, even though my choice would have been different. --bonadea contributions talk 11:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (GN)Notability is founded in coverage in reliable sources. It's not enough that sources exist; they have to be ones worth taking note of.
  • The fact that the Mail, Express and Digital Spy (noted for parroting stories from The Star) are being offered as "reliable" sources here is, frankly, concerning. --88.104.40.103 (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you talking about? All three are considered reliable sources, the Daily Mail especially. The Daily Mail is the second biggest daily newspaper in England. Digital Spy is the "fourth largest British entertainment website" and the Daily Express is also an important newspaper with high readership. If it's about the tabloid business, I think you need to understand that tabloid in England doesn't mean the same thing as it does here. There, it means a type of formatting and layout of a page, mainly with huge lettering for the cover story. SilverserenC 19:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm talking about reliabilty. You seem to think that popularity of a source is equivalent to its reliability. That is not the case. --88.104.40.103 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • However, popularity generally is a good indicator of reliability. But, regardless, you have given no reasons for why they aren't reliable beyond your own opinion. If you think they are unreliable, then let's take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Here, i'll go make a discussion section right now. SilverserenC 21:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote Jimbo Wales: "I wonder how often we link to the Daily Mail as if it is actually a source for anything at all? The number of times we should do so is really quite small – for most things they are just useless". --88.104.40.103 (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's a good thing then that Jimbo continually reminds everyone that he should just be considered the same as every other editor and that his opinion should not be considered more important than the opinion of anyone else. Furthermore, every newspaper has scandals where they mess up on something. Every major newspaper that I know of in the US has had multiple scandals where they wrote wrong and mis-informed articles. Pointing out just one example of such does not make one of the most read newspapers in the UK unreliable. SilverserenC 07:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, entirely notable and far better-sourced than many other articles on similar subjects that I have seen. Stifle (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in my opinion notability has been established. --86.185.86.83 (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - since the story arc is "Silece will fall", the rest of the season may very well deal with these creatures. Also, nearly all reviews for "The Impossible Astronaut" commented on the newest creature, so a critical reception section can be easily added and later expanded. Glimmer721 talk 23:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per all keep arguments above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezmasta2 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC) — Cheezmasta2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Has sufficient coverage per WP:GNG for a stub at least. 81.152.71.101 (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment TreasuryTag really should have conducted this AfD in a much less abrasive manner, this is very off-putting to new users. I wanted to post a keep, but I don't have the energy to go 12 rounds with certain people. User:Starblind has posted the most sensible comment so far: "It's possible to be factually correct but be so abrasive about it that people have a hard time agreeing with you. Why not just stop poking at everyone and let the community decide? Your conduct here has not helped your case." - hear hear. C 1 (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just another reminder, the discussion is never a vote. "Votes" which say "per all keep arguments above" are unnecessary and won't be counted. "Votes" which turn to an 'internal' significance (e.g. Silence will fall having been a phrase) also add nothing to the debate. Please attempt to discuss rather than "vote". Editors should be aware that significance ought to extend beyond the fact that there are 'sources'. My counter-example to such a proclamation is that clearly every minor character on Glee, because they attract tons of interviews and reviews and whatnot, would earn its own article, but instead this content is duly split between episode, season and list pages until it reaches a watershed moment. Truly, it could have a dozen sources repeating the information we have now, but that would not justify its position as a full article instead of a (wonderful!) section on the List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens page, until such time as it has developed some more varied areas of commentary and outside interest. I like that people are excited about this, and I like that people get excited to use Wikipedia in this way. And I get that people like having articles of this sort sooner rather than later because of it, but its sum content is not really that much to justify a page, even if you put in a year's plot summary (which would be bad too). When more commentaries come out, and if academic books and pop cultural analysts and significant newspapers in blogs open up an actually interesting discussion, then of course it would be justified having its own page. Every source that currently exists for "The Silence" is actually a wonderful source for "The Impossible Astronaut" and, if you wanted, the list page. But it doesn't have enough oomph to make its own page justifiable.~ZytheTalk to me! 10:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're wrong about the Glee character list. Only main characters are given articles, it doesn't matter how much coverage they get. This is why Blaine (Glee) was given an article lately, because he became a main character. And, if you're going to take the idea of only using articles for main characters, then of course the Silence will get an article, since they are the main villains of the entire season. SilverserenC 10:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't true. There are lots of shows whose "main characters" don't get an article and there are other shows where minor characters do. It's about notability guidelines. And besides which, the statement that the Silence are a major player in the season is impossible for you, or I, or anyone to know for sure because those episodes haven't been aired yet. Sure, there are interviews saying who the "big bad" would be, but these could be misdirection by the producers. Therefore, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we should really be patient just a FEW MORE WEEKS before making the decision that an alien in two episodes deserves a full article. JRP (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the Glee analogy is true, that is basically a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Rlendog (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Silence_(Doctor_Who)&oldid=1166303264"