Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who tie-in websites (2nd nomination)

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 delete. postdlf (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who tie-in websites

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominated this about a year and a half ago. It received a handful of keep !votes entirely based on WP:AADD and little other participation. It was eventually closed as no consensus. Quite a while later, it's still a great big pile of OR and primary-sourced fandom. I don't doubt there's content that may merit mention in the various articles about the shows (or other of the many articles on Dr. Who), but this is not an encyclopedic list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree as it stands this is not really a Wikipedia article. I think deletion is a legitimate option, but I also wonder if it might be possible to re-write using sources which discuss the websites as promotional/tie-in material for the series in 2005-2007. Alternately some of the better content could be merged into the story or series articles the website relates to. For instance the Deffry Vale School could be added to School Reunion (Doctor Who) and Leamington Spa Lifeboat Museum to Doctor Who (series 2)

Delete -- unsourced original research and a linkfarm (note all of the external links in body). No value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but possibly rename.

I basically broadly agree with the "comment" above. As it stands, the article is not good. However, considering whether "it might be possible to re-write using sources which discuss the websites as promotional/tie-in material" is spot on. That is exactly what I had in mind when I said that the article needed an overhaul in my comments on the article for deletion page in December 2014. As that would be the best possible option, I'm voting keep. I don't see why Wikipedia should aim for less than the best possible option.

Speaking of that discussion on the article for deletion page from December 2014, I'd like to direct people's attention to that, as all the arguments which I made then still stand.

Other options mentioned by myself back then, and now by the comment above, include merging some of the content with television series or television episode articles. While I don't think that this is the worst option (the worst option is probably deletion), I also don't quite see it as the best possible option. I don't see where the protection would come from the future editors who wanted to delete each section from each article because it didn't quite fit.

I still actually think that the Torchwood story should get its own standalone article. It included exclusive video segments featuring the main cast, so it is hard not to see why that is not being given more prominence.

I just think that if you got rid of the list of websites, and instead focused the article on the narrative of the stories that the websites told, and linked it to the marketing of Doctor Who, then it would be a decent article. Redv Blue 16:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to address any of the issues or reasons for deletion. The questions are whether it's a notable list (whether these tie-in websites, as a collective concept, receive significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject) and whether there's any usable content (based on reliable sources independent of the subject). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may not have answered the questions that you want to ask, but I did not come here to do that. I came here to express my opinion, and I think that I've made it quite clear what it is.

I've already said that the article should not be a list. I am just highlighting the fact that there are other options that could be considered, and other discussions that could take place, instead of just repetitively submitting this article for deletion.

I'm actually a little taken aback that you are telling me that I haven't addressed the issues that you talk about. Should it not be the other way around? You have now nominated this article for deletion twice. I'm not sure, but maybe, before the second nomination, there may have been an opportunity for you to think about addressing other people's issues, including mine. It would be good if you could propose some solution to these concerns, such as including information about the stories on other articles, or a new idea. Or should the last trace of them be wiped out?

I just feel as if we have jumped straight into another deletion discussion before all options are explored openly. Redv Blue 21:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may not have answered the questions that you want to ask, but I did not come here to do that. ? AfD is where an article is nominated for deletion, a rationale is given, and people who wish to keep the article either argue "that is not a valid rationale for deletion" or "the claim that it [is not notable, is original research, or whatever] is not accurate". A keep argument that doesn't address the deletion rationale isn't actually engaging in the deletion discussion (or, I suppose, it's arguing along WP:IAR lines). The keep arguments at the first AfD were almost entirely based on WP:USEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT, and various other WP:AADD. Quite a while later, nobody has shown any inclination to explore any options or make any improvements, so I've renominated in the hope that this time there will be consensus (one way or the other). If it's closed as keep, I won't be nominating again, certainly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting one of my sentences as if I have done something wrong by saying it. What that sentence means is that a deletion discussion was opened regarding something which I have an opinion on, and I came here to express that opinion independently of your points. I don't see anything wrong with that.

If, because I have done things that way, you feel that you should disregard my opinion, then you may of course do so.

However, I am not entirely sure how else was the best way to express my opinion, given that, as far as I am aware, the only discussions about this article's future have been in the form of these deletion discussions where the context is only ever about whether to delete the article or not. In these discussions there have been viewpoints raised that there could be other options for the stories from the article, but the only place for people to raise these issues has been in the context of deletion. Redv Blue 17:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting one of my sentences as if I have done something wrong by saying it. - Sorry to make it seem that way. I use {{tq}} as a way to being clear about what I'm responding to (using it again here as an example, not to be a pain). Thank you for clarifying that your comments should be considered independent of what I said in the nomination (and/or since then). In saying that you haven't responded to the reasons for deletion, I don't mean to say that you must do so; only that when the discussion is closed and admins/closers assess arguments, they're typically doing so in relation/starting with the reasons given for deletion, so comments that don't address the reasons for deletion tend to be discounted. Do with that what you will. I'll go ahead and leave it at that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far, far, far too detailed for Wikipedia. These websites are basically marketing campaigns, and they aren't notable as marketing campaigns. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MAYBE it would fit in on a Doctor Who fansite, but neither the level of detail or even the topic itself fits here. --Calton | Talk 12:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons already outlined above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2017 (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.