Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penfold

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. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penfold

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sidekick character (and thus 2nd or 3rd most notable) on a significant TV series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DangerMouse.Delete — Lack of verifiable secondary sources establishing notability per WP:FICT. Definite search term, though. MuZemike (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect wouldn't be very good in this case because the word/name is fairly widely used. See Penfold (disambiguation). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not see that. Good eye. MuZemike (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notability is as a sidekick to DangerMouse, little if any out-of-universe info available. Suggest moving Penfold (disambiguation) to this title. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no plot summary in this one--the nomination seems not to fit the article. DGG (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important character in the series that appears in every single episode. Edward321 (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an indicator of notability. Most shows have a large number of characters that appear in every episode. For it to be notable, it needs real world information. TTN (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. what isn't WP:PLOT is WP:OR. Also contains like 4-5 FU images in a decorative manner. As I read it, PLOT information isn't literal recitation of the narrative but instead coverage of the subject in a manner wedded to the work of fiction. Here the intro (and the IPC section) contain real life information but the rest is within the show solely or introduced by editors without reference. Concur with deleting and moving Penfold (disambiguation) over the title. Protonk (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:PLOT does not forbid plot summaries, but demands concise ones as part of our overall coverage of a work. This is part of our overall coverage of the work, and is not disproportionate compared with that overall coverage. One paragraph is possibly OR, but I am unwilling to equate "unsourced" with "OR," and so is our policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, are we assuming that the editors who wrote this segment used some sources we have yet to find and decided to not cite them? If an unsourced claim doesn't equal OR, what does? Protonk (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which segment? The German synchronization segment? Yes. I am willing to believe that the search for the presumably German-language sources there has been inadequate, and that this is based not on the author's own guess but on their memory of having read that in a magazine in the past. Remember - unsourced material is not forbidden. Unsourceable material is forbidden. Unsourced material is something we deal with - but we deal with it over time. Removing it before having a serious look for the information is not acceptable. The rest is inplicitly sourced to the primary source, and is not OR by any definition. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The segment that is "implicitly" sourced to primary material is at least partially OR. "Although he is a hamster some people believe Penfold is a mole, possibly due to his dark brown colour and the fact he wears thick glasses, as moles have bad eye sight", "This may have inspired Penfold's name as there is also a Penfold pillarbox design created by John Penfold although the pillar box in the show however was round and not hexagonal like the Penfolds style.", etc. Setting aside the notability element, it is original research to draw conclusions from primary sources. We have WP:PRIMARY because we don't want to be straight-jacketed into an "absolutely no primary sources at all" situation. But that policy specifically says "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." That is pretty clear to me. Protonk (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen a lot of DangerMouse recently, so I don't know if Penfold is confused with a mole in an episode or not, but as we still seem to be talking about 2 or 3 sentences, I'm really not finding much to stress out about here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:33, 4 October 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.