Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Mainwaring

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 TO DELETE. Herostratus 16:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Mainwaring

Elizabeth Mainwaring (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The subject of this page is a character never seen on the show (Dad's Army) and who exists only through the character of her husband (who, incidentally, has more written about him in this article than she does), and is of minor importance to the plot; hence is not notable. The article is not sourced in any way (and so fails WP:V). It is also, essentially, a plot summary (which is against WP:NOT), and also contains some editorial opinion which probably violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR). I have mooted the topic of deletion before (see Talk:Elizabeth Mainwaring) where I got little response, but I'm quite sure of my convictions and have decided to go ahead with this. John24601 14:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, a well-written, informative article which, unless I'm missing something has quite a few references, so easily passes WP:A. As for notability, if you have seen the programme, she is quite important in explaining much of Mainwaring's character development, despite being unseen. If the article is to be deleted, please make sure before deletion that its content is merged with the Captain Mainwaring article. Bob talk 16:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that she's important as far as Captain Mainwaring goes, but she's not important in her own right: for that reason I'm happy for her to be mentioned at length in Captain Mainwaring, as she infact is, but she does not deserve her own article. I mis-typed above, I meant "not sourced in any meaningful way": most of the (few) sources are to episodes and other in-universe material, there is no external referencing (say, to a review of the show), and many of the claims are not referenced at all: whilst you and I know they're true, a reader has no way of verifying this; and because third party sources are so scarce on this character, there's no way they ever will. --John24601 17:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the original research aspect - it's frustrating when you know something, and you know everybody else knows it as well, and yet it's never written down anywhere. Perhaps it would be better to integrate some of the content from this into the Mainwaring article, with a separate 'relationships' section similar to the Maurice Yeatman article. Bob talk 17:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - although no-one ever saw her she was referenced enough to be considered a character in her own right. Personally, I think we need a similar article on Er Indoors as well if anyone feels the urge. If you'll forgive a torrent of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, no-one would think of nominating Maris Crane, Bob Sacamano or Ugly Naked Guy, who contributed far less to their respective plots. I don't get the WP:OR argument in this case at all — there's no more OR involved in citing a script than there is in providing the plot summary to a book. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The OR argument isn't really central to my case here, it's just an add-on, another problem with the article. You're quite right that there is no OR in citing the script, but there is in interpreting it, e.g. That Mainwaring was starved of affection was well illustrated when, having established a women’s section of the platoon, his took a fancy to one of his new recruits, the elegant Mrs Fiona Grey (Carmen Silvera), with whom, out of character it seemed, he embarked upon a platonic affair - that is a referenced comment, but the reference only applies to the fact (Mainwaring had a platonic affair), not to the opinion that Mainwaring was starved of affection (which is not explicitly stated: the person writing that has drawn an inference from the screenplay, and hence has created original analysis, or research. I, like you, agree with the writer's interpretation, but that does not mean we are right and others may have entirely different interpretations). Do you see what I'm getting at? --John24601 17:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a hunch, but probably someone somewhere (possibly even Croft & Perry) will have written some kind of analysis that can be cited. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Captain Mainwaring. There was no actress credited with playing the role unlike say Mrs Pyke. People searching for information would be best served if it was included in the main article. Capitalistroadster 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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.