This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
In what way is this character even REMOTELY notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page? A character from a bloody audio drama?! Every character on every HBO show should have a page before this person does, considering that their shows are a million times more popular than this "audio play" nonsense will ever be. I loathe this fancruft BS. Wikipedia's standards have clearly declined drastically to allow this garbage to persist. 124.180.199.145 (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't know anything about this franchise, so take this with a grain of salt. I only came across this page once in an unreferenced category, I think. FWIW, the focus on audio drama in the (now former) article—especially in the lead—seemed to do a bit of a disservice to the character. She seems somewhat prominent given that several spin-off books have been published with her as the focus, making her what appears to be somewhat of her own sub-franchise. Anyway, you'd have to be careful of WP:NOTINHERITED arguments, but I might argue that a consolidated location to cover multiple notable (or borderline single-sourced) works might have more value than separate articles (if people create them). Food for thought on the possibilities on article improvement. I came across a few reviews for book 1 from an English professor and at Sci-Fi Bulletin, which lists an editorial staff. Sci-Fi bulletin also her other books (book 5) maybe even all of them? Courtesy pings @Rosguill and Toughpigs: if you have thoughts. -2pou (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's been some point-y behavior around Dr Who spinoff characters and I went through a whole bunch that ended up in the new pages queue today, Toughpigs may have more to comment regarding the disputes. I redirected the ones where no sources came up in an internet search for the character's name plus Dr. Who. Notability could maybe be cobbled together from sources like the ones you found there, but I was taking a triage attitude. IP's comments about declining standards are a bit ironic when you consider that this article has been around since 2005, and was only converted to a redirect for the first time today. signed, Rosguilltalk00:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Fancruft" equals WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as the OP's post emphatically reveals. Apparently, they like HBO shows more than Doctor Who audio plays. There's nothing wrong with that opinion; it just doesn't reflect on Wikipedia's standards or the notability of a given subject. I have a lot of Doctor Who books and magazines; when I have time, I'll add some references to the spinoff companion pages. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
