Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Sinclair (veterinary surgeon)

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 keep. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Sinclair (veterinary surgeon)[edit]

[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)

As with his brother's AfD discussion, there doesn't appear to be significant coverage about this individual, or anything which would satisfy notability per WP:ANYBIO: again, his fame appears to be solely by dint of the fact that a supporting character in the semi-autobiographical All Creatures Great and Small (franchise) was based on him, which wouldn't pass WP:NOTINHERITED; and as with his brother's page, I can't see any obvious target for a redirect. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is the reality behind one of the three main characters in a series of books, TV series, and films that have been extremely popular for around half a century. His activities and personality were fundamental to the genesis of the material. To describe him as merely 'a supporting character' is disingenuous. Frankly, this is a ridiculous nomination, that one has to assume has been made by someone who has no idea of the widespread interest in, and popularity of, the material that is significantly based on this person. It's particularly odd considering that even TV series that only ran for a few years may well have separate Wikipedia entries for many of their fictional characters. PRL42 (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment PRL42 could you direct me to the pages for the many fictional characters you mention? Unless I've missed something, the only character who has their own page is James Herriot. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you have misunderstood what I wrote. I was contrasting the suggestion that a character that was the basis for one of the three primary characters of a set of books, TV series and films that have been popular for fifty years should not be considered notable, whereas there are myriad entries for fictional characters in TV series that have only run a few years. If you want an example, look at 'Parks and Recreation' (admittedly an excellent series), where virtually all the main characters have their own page.

You're right, I did misunderstand you: my apologies. However, your argument seems to be predicated on the argument that other stuff exists. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and as it say in the 'Other stuff exists' article, this can be a valid or invalid argument. "Winston Churchill and my dog are both mammals, Winston Churchill has an entry so therefore my dog should have one" is clearly absurd. It is agreed that Wikipedia should be consistent, so my argument is that as the franchise that is significantly based on this subject is both extremely popular and extraordinarily long lived, it should be acceptable that the information be present. However, see my comment after the re-list notice. PRL42 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be that the problem here is that the article is titled for the real person and should actually be subsumed into an article titled for the fictionalised name. Possibly the best move would be to create an article for Siegfried Farnon rather than have that title redirect to Donald Sinclair as it does at present - particularly as that is almost certainly the starting point for the route anyone interested in the character would take PRL42 (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it helps, when Sinclair died in July 1995, his obituary was widely published. Here's the New York Times obit, and ProQuest shows similar obituaries in the Chicago Sun-Times, Boston Globe, Daily Telegraph, Washington Post, etc. I don't know how much that adds to notability, because for the most part they say "he was the inspiration for Siegfried Farnon" and not a lot else, but I offer it here if anybody wants it. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason that this article should exist is that the information concerns a major character in a major and very long running franchise, that has been popular around the world for half a century. other stuff exists is virtually useless in helping here, as all it really says is that you cannot simplistically use other stuff does or doesn't exist to argue for or against an entry. For consistency within Wikipedia, and on a like for like basis, however, I would suggest that for an entry such as this, it would be more correct to ask someone petitioning for deletion to be asked to explain why this entry should be treated any differently from the thousands of other entries for characters in fiction. The only real difference here is that this character redirects to a bio for the person it was based upon, rather than having a entry for the character's name, containing his semi-fictional details and including this bio. It's not possible to do this at the moment because of the extant redirect, and it does not seem appropriate to change that whilst this discussion is ongoing. I'd suggest that the best option would be for the article and redirect to be deleted at which point a proper entry for the character in the franchise can be created. PRL42 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has clearly been noticed; the page gets thousands of views on a daily basis. If more details and sources are wanted then this is done by looking for them; not deleting the page. For example, see The Originals: Who's Really who in Fiction, which has entries for the Sinclairs. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on above discussion. Balle010 (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can’t see anything that would not seem to be accurate. It’s still of some interest. There is a new TV drama featuring the fictionalised version of this person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.242.141 (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This deletion proposal is ridiculous. Sinclair, via Farnon, is eminently notable. The more so in light of the new TV series. Arcturus (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sinclair/Farnon is a highly notable characher and regardless of whether he is better known as Farnon, he has been an intrinsic part of the story line/history of countless books two re-makes of a television shows and a movie. He has been played by two notorious actors, Robert Hardy and Sir Anthony Hopkins. For those interested in the history of James Herriot, Sinclair is invaluable. Southy01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.19.142 (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs a lot of cleanup and sourcing, but the subject is clearly notable. Archrogue (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2020 (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.