Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Silence (Doctor Who): Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:52, 24 April 2011 editTreasuryTag (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users46,645 edits cm← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:56, 24 April 2011 edit undoHyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk \| contribs)823 edits →Silence (Doctor Who): 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.Next edit →
Line 28:		Line 28:
	*:It's a citation ] an assertion that was already in the article. ] (]) 19:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)		*:It's a citation ] an assertion that was already in the article. ] (]) 19:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
	*::But it does nothing to advance the subject's notability, which was my point. <font color="#C4112F">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 19:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)		*::But it does nothing to advance the subject's notability, which was my point. <font color="#C4112F">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 19:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
			::::It wasn't about notability, which was mine. ] (]) 19:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
	*:::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.]] 19:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)		*:::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.]] 19:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
	*::::{{xt\|Wow, such vehemence over a Dr. Who article.}} Not helpful. {{xt\|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. {{xt\|Try arguing without the invective.}} Try not making fallacious arguments thus alleviating the necessity for me to employ rhetorical devices. {{xt\|This seems to heading for snow close territory}} – do a Ctrl+F for <tt>MythArc</tt> and tell me once again that this should be snow-closed. <font color="#A20846">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 19:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)		*::::{{xt\|Wow, such vehemence over a Dr. Who article.}} Not helpful. {{xt\|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. {{xt\|Try arguing without the invective.}} Try not making fallacious arguments thus alleviating the necessity for me to employ rhetorical devices. {{xt\|This seems to heading for snow close territory}} – do a Ctrl+F for <tt>MythArc</tt> and tell me once again that this should be snow-closed. <font color="#A20846">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 19:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
			::::::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. ] (]) 19:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:56, 24 April 2011

Silence (Doctor Who)

(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. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 17:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep as notable. Some evidence already, as the fictional adversaries in the current story arc of a very popular television series, it seems reasonable to suppose that further evidence of notability will be forthcoming. The current state of the article is not an argument. Comments on the perceived inadequacies of other editors do not constitute deletion arguments. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Classic fallacious argument – please point me towards third-party reliable sources containing significant coverage of this subject. ╟─Treasury Tag►collectorate─╢ 17:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I added one to the article just before posting my comment. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
That article doesn't even contain the words "Silent" or "Silence" – what's the matter with you? The fact that the BBC isn't a third party to, erm, the BBC, is quite another issue. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This article (added as a "reference") doesn't contain significant coverage either; one of its few mentions of them describes how they "were almost an aside to this episode." ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 18:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Nonetheless they are referred to. BBC News is generally regarded as a reliable source. Please stop the personal comments right now. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Read WP:GNG again. There must be significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Just because they are "referenced" doesn't mean there is significant coverage. Just because BBC News is a reliable source doesn't mean it is third party. This really isn't rocket science. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 18:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep - They're the Big Bad of the 6th Season and are named as the Silence in the ending credits.--S G Command 17:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:NOTINHERITED form the basis of your argument. In what way do these creatures meet the notability threshold? Where is the significant coverage in third-party reliable sources? Where? Link to it. Provide references. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 18:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
You obviosly have something against this article!!!--S G Command 18:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Well at least you don't. ╟─Treasury Tag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 18:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
They're central to this seasons MythArc--S G Command 18:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want to propose the policy, Misplaced Pages:Doctor Who monsters are to be considered notable if they're central to the current seasons MythArc then go ahead. ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 18:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What TT is saying, rather indirectly, is that Misplaced Pages: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)

Keep. Here's The Guardian and The Daily Mail. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
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. ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 18:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
No, it was a slightly sarcastic and tremendously humourous version of the common idiom, "...on the fingers of one hand." ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 18:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
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. He iro 19:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
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. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 19:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
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. ╟─Treasury Tag►collectorate─╢ 19:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a citation verifying an assertion that was already in the article. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
But it does nothing to advance the subject's notability, which was my point. ╟─Treasury Tag►international waters─╢ 19:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't about notability, which was mine. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

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.He iro 19:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
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. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 19:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

Categories: