Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Martin (television character)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Xclamation point 03:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Martin (television character)

[edit]
Ruth Martin (television character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unnotable fictional character that fails WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT. Only "source" is a book about the series. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Has been tagged for notability and other issues since February with no improvement at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make her notable per Wikipedia guidelines. If there are reliable sources in magazines or books please point them out. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as important character in a very important show. the importance is shared with the show, so that's the notability, and primary sources are adequate for the content. Alternatively, do a combination article for the characters--there does not presently seem to be one -- and expand when there are sources.DGG (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep core character of long-running and influential TV series, played by two very notable actresses. As for "Only "source" is a book about the series. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources." that's self-contradictory. A book about the series is an excellent source for character information. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that self-contradictory? An official book about the series has long been established to NOT be a third party source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think it's an "official" book, and thus an improper source? It was published by Penguin and written by an author with no direct connection to the show. And even if it were official, that doesn't disqualify it as a source. We have many articles that cite the subject's own autobiography (quick examples: Anne Frank and Winston Churchill). And this isn't the only book about the Lassie show, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledge? Ace Collins's book was used in the Anniversary DVD set, with the company tapping her to create an abridged version for inclusion in the set. Also, I did NOT say it disqualified it as a source. It is a great, reliable source. It does NOT however establish any notability for this character). It adds nothing new and nothing specific to this article. It is pure plot regurgitation with little actually being attributable to the book except the first and perhaps second trivia note. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it an abridged version of an indepandant book? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. He is the official "Lassie historian" per the trademark holder, Classic Media, and contributes regularly to the official Classic Media Lassie site. While a noted writer of many other books, in the case of Lassie he is not a independant biographer but very closely tied to the company/franchise. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ace Collins was not "tied" to Classic Media when his 1993 book was published by Penguin. So later he was recognized by CM as something of an authority on the subject and invited to write an introduction for their DVD collection. So what? The DVD insert is not cited in the Ruth Martin article anyway. ItsLassieTime (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How? Being a major character in a major television program does NOT satisfy any official notability standards. Notability of the series does NOT confer to the character. Without reliable, third party sources discussing such aspects of the character as creation/conception, reception, and cultural impact, she does NOT have notability.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please produce them. Claiming there are "abundant sources" without demonstrating doesn't really show this. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are too many to conveniently list them all here. Here's a dozen:
  • Children's Television, 1947-1990
  • Children's Television, the First Thirty-five Years, 1946-1981
  • Encyclopedia of Television
  • Forced to Be Family
  • Reaching a Critical Mass: A Critical Analysis of Television Entertainment
  • Saturday Morning TV
  • St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture
  • The American Film Institute Catalog of Motion Pictures Produced in the United States
  • The Wow Climax: Tracing the Emotional Impact of Popular Culture
  • Total Television: A Comprehensive Guide to Programming from 1948 to the Present
  • TV's Greatest Hits: The 150 Most Popular TV Shows of All Time
  • What Would Murphy Brown Do?: How the Women of Prime Time Changed Our Lives
Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those appear to primarily be sources for the SHOW (obviously notable), not this specific character from a show which 50 years later still notes that Lassie was the star and the rest were just there. Only two appear to be ones that may discuss the actual character of Ruth Martin. And, of course, I notice that you did not list specific page numbers or quotes, which makes me wonder if you actually checked any of those or if you are simply listing a ton of books that may be sources? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep/WP:Speedy keep per all other !votes. Any other editors can now feel free to perform a Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep my butt. No one gave good reasons to keep the article. Schuym1 (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major character in well-documented, long-running, Emmy Award-winning, highly rated, critically acclaimed series that is now universally regarded with shows such as "The Honeymooners", "Gunsmoke", and "What's My Line?" as a 1950s television cornerstone. The show is (and always has been) aired in reruns in the US and around the world, attesting to its undying popularity and importance to world culture. Many episodes are available on VHS and DVD. Series enjoyed its greatest popularity and its highest ratings during character's tour of duty. Many titles of equal and lesser note have stand-alone articles for their characters -- WP articles Gloria Stivic, Catherine Earnshaw, and Desdemona, for example, do not cite primary, secondary, or tertiary sources! There's nothing in the WP article to suggest Desdemona is "notable". The WP article on Ruth Martin is considerably better documented than these articles! Ruth Martin appeared in spinoff materials such as novels, comic books, toys, film, film posters, and lobby cards -- thus attesting to the character's popularity, her recognizability by the public, and ipso facto her notability. Nothing in WP policy states a subject MUST be referenced in university journals. While such sources are desirable, they are not required beyond a shadow of a doubt. If that were the case, WP would lose 98% of its content. Primary and secondary sources are enough for inclusion at WP -- and "Ruth Martin" has both. ItsLassieTime (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Nothing in WP policy states a subject MUST be referenced in tertiary sources"...really? Well, I guess technically WP:N is a guidelines, but yeah, it does say the subject must be discussed in secondary sources, which no one has shown any evidence that this character is discussed in yet. Only primary sources (which includes all forms of media for the series and official publications tied to it). Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping any article. Many many more have been deleted or merged. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ruth Martin IS discussed in a secondary source: Ace Collins' book Lassie: a dog's life published by Penguin Books, 1993. The Collins book is NOT a primary source, it's a secondary source. Collins was not affliated with Classic Media when the Penguin book was published in 1993, and even if he had he been, I'm not sure that would disqualify his book from being a source. His insert material for the DVD package (which was published, I believe, in 2004) has not been cited in the Ruth Martin article. WP is flexible; we are asked to be bold, and to use sense and discrimination in creating articles. Primary sources -- such as Lassie episodes are acceptable sources for "reporting the fictional facts". The article has its Primary Sources for the fictional facts of the character and a Secondary Source for "real world" material about the character. WP guidelines do not state the 2 or more Primary or Secondary Sources MUST be cited to establish notability or inclusion. While tertiary sources are preferred they are NOT required to establish notability nor inclusion at WP. An article cannot be deleted simply because it does not cite compendia, other encylcopedia, or textbooks. The Ruth Martin article with its Primary and Secondary Sources satisifies WP notability and WP requirements for inclusion. KEEP. ItsLassieTime (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Major character in a major series. Notability is established. Character played by two notable actresses. Article is under construction and appears work is being done. Cites primary and secondary sources per WikiP guidelines. STRONG KEEP.
  • Redirect: to Lassie (1954 TV series). Notability is not flippin inherited! The sources that were found prove that the series is notable, but not the character. Schuym1 (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the book is indeed about the series, there is nothing in WP guidelines or policy forbidding the use of a book about a television series to glean material about a series character for a stand-alone article. There is no policy or guideline stating a TV series character MUST have an independent full-length book published solely about that character in order for the inclusion of a stand-alone article about that character at WP. Guidelines ask for secondary sources, and, while multiple sources are preferred, they are not required. A single secondary source (in addition to a primary source) is all that is necessary for the inclusion of the article about Ruth Martin -- considering the article's depth. Additionally, June Lockhart received a 1959 Emmy Award nomination for her portrayal of Ruth Martin. The nomination constitutes "Significant Coverage" and the character's NOTABILITY is confirmed. ItsLassieTime (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Sourced, notable character from notable series played by notable actress who was nominated for notable award for said portrayal.Edward321 (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Lassie characters. Fictional character without a shred of real-world significance. —Angr 05:50, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruth_Martin_(television_character)&oldid=1138324979"