Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Servalan

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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Servalan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A sci TV character with little or no reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources for this topic including The Essential Science Fiction Television Reader, The Essential Cult TV Reader and A History and Critical Analysis of Blake's 7. The topic is therefore notable per the WP:GNG. Andrew (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains useful and interesting matter for devotees of the series, I'm not sure that the character merits an entire article though, it would be good just to include this information in the main Blakes Seven article. For balance, then, details of all the other main, or recurring characters would also have to be expanded. It's a lot of work.Plingsby (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Plingsby (talk) if it not notable or has any third person sources surely a better compromise to deletion would be to merge to Characters of Blake's 7. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I didn't realise that there was such an extensive article out there (it's not mentioned in the "see also" section of the main Blakes Seven page.) This article is well-constructed and as I said, interesting to fans (like me) of the series. A lot of work has obviously gone into it. It should not be deleted, merger with Characters of Blake's 7 is the way to go. Plingsby (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we agree Plingsby (talk) Servalan maybe should be merged. But Roj Blake really needs to be discussed also. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't agree. I don't have the impression that you know the first thing about this show or how huge this character was back in the day. Have you read any of the sources provided above such as A History and Critical Analysis of Blake's 7? The topic is quite notable and our editing policy applies. Andrew (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIf all these so called articles are notable by all means add sources I am not against character profiles I love them so long as it has sources to show that are notable. I am just sick of people screaming notable with character bios which literally have one line and no sources and people wanna argue its notable and don't wanna add sources. I would argue WP:PROVEIT Andrew I am not having a go at you. I am just making a general statement if you can bother to create an article you can be bothered to find sources to justify its notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2014 (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.