Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oh No It Isn't!

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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh No It Isn't! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

LACKS WP: NBOOK, refs, reliable external links, reviews, WP: SIGCOV; should probably be deleted, but if not, merged or redirected into Bernice Summerfield DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve done some work on the article, expanding it and adding some citations. Will try to do some more. Bondegezou (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify my earlier comments, I've done some work on the article. It is, if I do say so myself, improved and better addresses WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG concerns, although others will have to decide if it's enough. (And more can certainly be done.) I favour keeping. If not kept, there's chunk of text under "Writing and development" that would usefully go in the Virgin New Adventures article, and maybe some other text and a citation on the audio adaptation that would usefully go to the Bernice Summerfield article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bernice Summerfield, which is a more focused redirect target given this book focuses primarily on the character. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. O'Mahony, Daniel (September–October 1997). "Oh No It Isn't!" (PDF). Vector. No. 195. p. 19. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-09-24. Retrieved 2024-09-24.

      The review notes: "When good Time Lords die, they go to Cambridge. This is the upshot of Oh No It Isn't!, the first of Virgin Publishing's attempts to spin off the self-originated elements of their Doctor Who: The New Adventures series now that BBC Books have nabbed back the rights. The good bit of the collective title having been pinched, these are just The New Adventures. It's a reasonably accurate (if feeble) description though, and thankfully the embarrassing publicity strapline: 'Science Fiction has never been this much fun!', is absent from the jacket of the actual book. ... Is it a novel or a comedy? It starts as the former. The first chapter, laid out in relaxed, delicious prose, establishes Bernice's world and her inner life without the punctuation of incident. Cornell makes Bernice a real woman—a qualified fake, a divorcee trundling towards middle-age (though not as fast as she thinks), a bitter wit and a frustrated lover. This is easily the finest passage of the book. It is the introduction the series demands."

    2. Hinton, Craig (May 1997). "NA: Oh No It Isn't!". TV Zone. No. 90. p. 64. Retrieved 2024-09-24 – via Internet Archive.

      The review notes: "I'll be honest: I had my doubts about Virgin continuing this series without the Doctor. Would Benny and the supporting cast drawn from the Missing and New Adventures be strong enough to carry what is effectively a new line of novels? If Oh No It Isn't! is anything to go by, it will be a breath of fresh air. This book is a scream: funny, exciting and clever, all in one. Of course, it will be interesting to see how much of this is because of Paul Cornell's writing and his knowledge of his own creation, Benny. ... Her resourcefulness, her character flaws, her sheer enjoyment of life make her convincing and three-dimensional, and being dumped in a pantomime universe is a wonderful way of exploring all of these facets. Her companions are just as richly drawn, from ..."

    3. Owen, Dave (1997-05-07). "Shelf Life: The New Adventures Oh No It Isn't". Doctor Who Magazine. No. 251. p. 44. Retrieved 2024-09-24.

      The review notes: "At least Oh No It Isn't! has some scene-setting at the outset; Bernice, having taken the chair archaeology at St Oscar's University on Dellah is succumbing to premature middle-age. Even without the prefacing quotation from Emma Thompson, I would soon have envisaged Bernice cycling around the campus as Thompson's character in the film Junior. She's accompanied by pet cat Wolsey, and her colleagues include another old recurring character, Menlove Stokes, ... He presents an immature, laddish character, whose inarticulate utterances are peppered with terms like "stuff", "basically", "sort of like", and even "pissed", "bonk", and "shag". This unrecognisably carnal Bernice exhibits a curiously selective memory of her specialisation too, cracking a joke about nineties pop groups yet completely forgetting the phenomenon of pantomime. In telling this story, Paul exerts so much effort playing to the gallery that the main narrative topples over from the weight of in-jokes, parodies, and pointless contemporary references that it's required to support. All of them obfuscate the existing two layers of reality, and for little gain; they are all deeply unfunny."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Oh No It Isn't! to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2024 (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.