Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unseen character

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. - Mailer Diablo 01:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unseen character

Unseen character (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The OR tendency is manifested from the very beginning of the lead section. The whole article wretchedly fails to cite any sources. OR conspicuously continues in the next sections, eg: "The earliest example of an unseen and unheard television character was Gladys Potter on the 1950s TV series December Bride... or "The second most common phenomenon in this category is.... This article "introduces original ideas", which must be excluded from Wikipedia. @pple 02:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Current article contents do indeed need referencing, however, some looking is able to turn up examples. [1] and [2] for example. Or [3]. There's probably more in books that focus on the field, but I think these three at least demonstrate that there is some validity to the concept overall. Enough that the solution here is {{unreferenced}} rather than deletion. If you really feel strongly about it, you can use {{rewrite}} and {{originalresearch}}. FrozenPurpleCube 04:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per above. ISD 12:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - and tag accordingly. There seem to be plenty of sources referring to specific unseen characters and far less that write about the concept, so I am not sure how much info this article should eventually contain. However, it adresses an important concept and is a useful anchor article for the category Category:Unseen characters.--Tikiwont 12:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The unseen character is often one of the most interesting characters in a script, more so in a television series because he or she appears in every episode without actually appearing. O.R. to a large extent, yes, but no less O.R. than most television articles, and Wikipedia tends to look the other way when it comes to TV. In this case, the article is more useful than the vast majority of TV articles, and I've reached it before, knowing that Wikipedia would have it when nobody else would, by going through blue links in other articles (Vera from Cheers, or Maris from Frasier, etc.). Mandsford 16:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as above comments, esp FrozenPurpleCube; the subject seems notable enough and clearly can be sourced. Lack of sourcing due to editor apathy is different to lack of sourcing due to lack of sources (which would merit deletion) EyeSereneTALK 18:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article badly needs references and a more comprehensive scope. As written, the topic appears confined to television. However, this technique has been used in radio (Fibber McGee and Molly, for certain) and theatre well before the 1950s. Serpent's Choice 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Uh...weren't ALL radio characters unseen, except by the studio audience, in photos, or in the "mind's eye?" Edison 19:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
In a sense. But there are still characters who were "off-stage" so to speak. FrozenPurpleCube 03:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable theater convention. OR argument valid for pruning/re-write not deletion. Wl219 21:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's interested and better-written than a lot of stuff here. Czolgolz 22:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Promising article on a clearly definable topic which can easily be referenced. Lack of references is not a reason to bring to AfD. This is not an 'original idea', in fact the whole article shows that it's not an original idea. Nick mallory 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep There was once a huge list in the article that showed that the unseen character as a device is used quite often in many mediums. While the list deserved to be deleted, the article doesn't. I think we should keep the article and tag it for referencing, as long as the list stays out of the article. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely unsourced original research. Jay32183 02:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs sources but not OR. Google returns many non-wiki hits for "unseen character" in literary criticism. Squidfryerchef 03:14, 17 August 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.