Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Jackson (Doctor Who)

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 merge‎ to Polly (Doctor Who). There is an approximate consensus here that any coverage in reliable sources relates to the character duo, and covering that material in a single article is appropriate. As the target article has survived AfD, the concerns about merging there seem moot. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Jackson (Doctor Who)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

While he is a companion, his article, as well as Polly's, rely on primary sources, and I can't find any other sources on either him. Thus, he doesn't seem to meet the GNG nor SIGCOV. As he is a classic series companion, there may be reception scattered about here and there, but I'm not sure if there's enough to constitute a whole article. Worst comes to worst, Ben and Polly's articles should be merged given that they come as a duo, but as it stands right now, he should probably just be merged into the Companions article. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who) I'm reluctant, but there's limited opportunity for improved secondary coverage given Michael Craze died before Doctor Who home media gathered momentum. Polly (Doctor Who), who Ben never appears without, is there for any minor material. U-Mos (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I'm not entirely sure each companion needs an article, I see no value in deleting the article on a single companion when all the others have articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, really? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp has started doing this semi-obsessively on fictional character articles. From an experienced user it’d be bad, from an admin it’s borderline trolling. Dronebogus (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF and WP:NPA. You are skating on thin ice here, my friend. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So are you Dronebogus (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that this sort of personal attack on any editor who expresses principled dissent has become so commonplace on AFD. Whatever one's opinion on this particular article, the harm done to the encyclopedia by haphazardly deleting arbitrary members of a set is readily apparent. -- Visviva (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who). Fairly minor early character with the slight novelty of being a rare reappearance of a classic companion in the revival. Only one surviving complete story featuring him exists, so I highly doubt any sources exist discussing him in detail. Dronebogus (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect unless someone rescues this by adding reception/analysis so that it meets GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Polly (Doctor Who) or keep: Ben Jackson is discussed in a number of secondary sources, like [1], [2], and [3], even if not at great length. Commentary on him is often in relation to or pairing with Polly. Daranios (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think merging is a good solution. WP:GNG would now apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm reluctant to Redirect or Merge to Polly (Doctor Who) as this article is also at AFD and it's unclear what the outcome of that discussion will be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per Daranios's comment above, secondary sources exist, satisfies, WP:GNG.Frond Dishlock (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Sources exist and he has coverage which can be expanded. If the article is not kept then it should be at the very least Merged with Polly's article (as in they have an article together with a change in the page title). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We could use a review of recently presented sources in this discussion. It would help to hear some policy-based opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator. I've been mostly silent in the discussion thus far (Partially due to being away from my computer for a long time) but I feel now would be a good time to give some thoughts on the discussion.

Taking a look at the sources @Daranios provided, as much as I'd like to keep Ben's article, only the first source seems to be adequate for providing information. Source three really only briefly discusses Ben in terms of plot summary. Source two mostly seems to be plot summary, and focuses on Polly much more than Ben. Maybe I missed something there, as the book is partially paywalled? Still, I don't think it's enough to justify SIGCOV, in this case. I have changed my mind on GNG, but I feel SIGCOV is the real kicker in this conversation. I did another search for sources in case I missed anything, but outside of what Daranios has provided, I can't really find anything that isn't trivial mentions.

As nominator, I will say that I now think it's unwise to merge with Polly's article, as I'm just not sure how Ben would factor into the article, and I'm concerned it would become an example of coatracking. This is especially true as it seems Polly's discussion is leaning towards keep right now, which I very much agree with given the sources presented there. I'm afraid I don't think Ben's article is able to be kept, or able to be merged with Polly, as of right now. Thus, it feels as though a redirect to Companion would be the best option at this point, unless I've missed something with the sources provided. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, as I'd love to keep Ben's article around. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re the third source there, the Radio Times article. I don't think that's entirely accurate, the analysis of them constituting an 'odd couple' isn't plot summary.Frond Dishlock (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that just describing his and Polly's role overall in the series? That's still essentially the equivalent of a basic character overview rather than actually discussing the character himself. Pokelego999 (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Is the fact that they are an "odd couple" due to their class difference discussed in the series itself? If not I would say that it is commentary rather than plot summary which would probably be considered original research if not supported by a secondary source. It is also discussed as "evoking male fantasy of..." in source 2, Women in Doctor Who, which compounds it as analysis. It is a comment about the relationship between Ben and Polly and therefore applies in equal parts to both characters. Which then, in case Ben Jackson would not be kept as stand-alone article, could be discussed within Pollys article and then is specifically not coatracking. At the same time it would fit WP:MERGEREASON #3 (although it would be more than "only one or two sentences"). If such a merged article would better be called Polly (Doctor Who) or Polly and Ben Jackson or some such could be decided based on how large a part of analysis refers to both. Daranios (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the arguments you've provided in relation to the sources, then I suppose the best option for Ben would be a merger. Given almost all of Ben's coverage factors directly into his relationship with Polly, it seems beneficial for both articles to merge from what I've seen here. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge to Polly, otherwise a weak keep. I would agree that only the Frankham-Allen Companions book gets us comfortably over the crucial SIGCOV threshold in that it addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. The problem with the plot summaries that seem to make up most of the coverage is that any overall narrative of the character would inevitably be constructed by us. Frankham-Allen has some analysis of the character as a person -- but notably he handles Polly and Ben as a single unit, analyzing Ben in terms of his relationship with Polly. One finds some interesting things here and there, e.g. this book mentions Ben as one of the rare working-class companions. I think it's possible to have a somewhat encyclopedic article here. But overall it seems like we would best fit the available sources by treating Polly and Ben together in one article. -- Visviva (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Only one of the books provides SIGCOV. We need more than that. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2023 (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.