- 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 per consensus and newly-added nontrivial reliable sources. As for merging into a single article for both of them, that can be handled (if desired; consensus was less clear) outside the AfD process. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian Sinclair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Brian Sinclair and Donald Sinclair (veterinary surgeon) were British vets, and brothers. They happened to work with Alf Wight (who wrote as James Herriot). Their sole claim to fame was having characters from Herriot's novels loosely based on them. A PROD tag was removed from Brian Sinclair by an IP as the article had "interesting background information" (I don't see it myself). I submit these articles fail to meet our requirements for notability per WP:BIO, failing to show any real notability. Neil ☎ 11:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also included: Donald Sinclair (veterinary surgeon).
- Keep or merge and redirect to a suitable article. They certainly add to an encyclopedic treatment of Herriot's works, so I think deletion is counter to our purposes. They are tidy little stubs, need sourcing but we can't expect perfection, and let's not forget the second rule of Wikipedia: Leave something for somebody else to do. If the mood of afd is really that they can't support articles, please find somewhere where this useful information can be added so that we succeed in our remit to educate and inform for free. Hiding Talk 11:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding to an eneyclopedia treatment of Herriot's works suggests they should be at best merged into James Herriot. WP:BIO is pretty clear on what is and is not article-worthy, and these articles about vets are not.
- If you believe they could be sourced, please do feel free to provide examples of such sources. Sources would include "a credible independent biography", "widespread coverage over time in the media such as the BBC, The Times or other reliable sources", "demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources", or "in depth, independent, coverage in multiple publications showing a widely recognized contribution to the enduring historical record in the person's specific field". Our remit is to provide encyclopaedic coverage of the sum of human knowledge. The key word being "encyclopaedic" - articles on common or garden vets are not encyclopaedic. Neil ☎ 12:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no independent encyclopedic value. Knowing someone notable does not incur notability. MLA 15:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. AFD appears to be based on subjective grounds, at odds with the requirements of WP:Notability. Good primary and secondary sources easy to locate (I've added 2). As for WP:Use common sense; I think we need to ask ourselves if someone using WP for researching the James Herriot novels would expect to find articles on the main characters they were based upon ? I say yes. Consequently I feel that removal would lessen the usefulness of WP. -- Daytona2 15:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to James Herriot or All Creatures Great and Small or other appropriate article. The two real life vets have no notability except by being the models for literary characters. It is very unlikely that anyone would go looking for them under their real names, and the information available on them is not extensive enough to justify separate articles. It would not overbalance the article on James Herriot to include all the information in these separate articles in his article. Sam Blacketer 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep to a suitable article. I basically agree with Hiding, but I feel more strongly about keeping. We have full articles on obscure characters mentioned just once in an appendix to the Lord of the Ring, so I'd say we should keep an article on a real person who inspired a major character in a classic series of books. Vincent 18:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I never like pointing this sort of thing out, but the presence of one poor article does not justify another. Neil ☎ 11:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. As a long-standing Herriott fan I have only barely heard of these two, and the sources derive entirely from their status as Heriott characters. No need to lose the info, just trim a bit and put it where it's most useful, which is in the context of the Herriott characters. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the inspiration for a semi-fictional character, I wouldn't ordinarily think it important--but in this case the character and the book is so extremely notable that the article is justified. DGG (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both per DGG, but merge into a Donald and Brian Sinclair article. These two people were the basis of central characters in a massively popular fictionalised series of books/TV programmes and are central characters in a museum, so they are more than an obscure pair of muses; notability per WP:BIO is established by the references added by Daytona2. The articles are short but well-formed and well-referenced, and although I wouldn't object in principle to a merger into James Herriott or All Creatures Great and Small, the Sinclair borthers don't appear to me to be an easy fit, and I dislike articles where something has been visibly plonked in to disrupt the flow. However, the articles on the two brothers could usefully be combined into an elegant start-class article, without either losing info or overloading the other articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge into a single article would be an improvement from the current state. Neil ☎ 11:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per BrownHairedGirl, while at the same time addmitting a bias, as I edited both articles at various times. Jcuk (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge as articles like these give pertinent information on well loved characters and are part of the charm of Wikipedia.
- 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.