This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SGCommand (talk | contribs) at 18:38, 24 April 2011 (→Silence (Doctor Who)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:38, 24 April 2011 by SGCommand (talk | contribs) (→Silence (Doctor Who))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Silence (Doctor Who)
- 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)
- 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. ╟─TreasuryTag►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. ╟─TreasuryTag►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." ╟─TreasuryTag►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. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 18:27, 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)
- I added one to the article just before posting my comment. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Classic fallacious argument – please point me towards third-party reliable sources containing significant coverage of this subject. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 17:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - They're the Big Bad of the 6th Season and are named as the Silence in the ending credits.--SGCommand 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. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 18:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- You obviosly have something against this article!!!--SGCommand 18:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well at least you don't. ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 18:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- They're central to this seasons MythArc--SGCommand 18:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well at least you don't. ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 18:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- You obviosly have something against this article!!!--SGCommand 18:32, 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. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 18:01, 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. ╟─TreasuryTag►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." ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 18:31, 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)
- 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)