Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Fusion (Doctor Who)


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 12:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Cold Fusion (Doctor Who)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about book that has been tagged as unsourced since 2008, and has no indication of its notability. Ohwrotcod (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: I have now done some work on this article: added a number of citations, bit of clean-up. I'll try to do some more. You get 21,000 Ghits for "lance parkin" "cold fusion": the challenge is only sorting out which constitute reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 *  Keep Strong Keep As per Bondegezou plus the article is now much improved with multiple citations which meet WP:RS. StuartDouglas (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the worst website, and everyone should grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.253.171 (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Bondegezou has now added sources to the article, however a)some don't mention the book at all, b)the only one that is a verifiable source simply mentions that Parkin wrote a book called 'Cold Fusion' that is about 'Doctor Who'. Is that really worthy of a Wikipedia article, and not merely a mention on the Lance Parkin article? . Ohwrotcod (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Ohwrotcod's comments are demonstrably untrue and Ohwrotcod is now making dubious edits to the article. All the citations added describe the book in question. I am unclear which citation Ohwrotcod feels is the only "verifiable source", but all the citations say more than that "Parkin wrote a book called 'Cold Fusion'." As I said at a related AfD (Articles for deletion/Return of the Living Dad), it is difficult to see Ohwrotcod's nomination as being in good faith given his/her prior comments. That said, I recognise this article needed work, which is why I have been adding material to it. Bondegezou (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment My comments are entirely true. I removed much CRUFT, which was both entirely in-universe and completely unsourced. As I stated earlier, the BBC link is certainly a WP:RS, but all it does is mention in passing that Parkin wrote Cold Fusion. It is not in any way an article about Cold Fusion. The "not in citation given" tags are because while the website listed is itself of far-from-certain reliability, nowhere did it specifically mention Cold Fusion. I suggest Bendegezou look at a thing called WP:SYNTHESIS, and another called WP:OR. Ohwrotcod (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Ohwrotcod removed the plot synopsis: having a plot synopsis is standard for novel articles and not fancruft. The (archived) BBC link is an interview with Parkin. It is not about Cold Fusion, but covers Cold Fusion among several of his works. There is a question and an answer on Cold Fusion. It is entirely wrong to say that "all it does is mention in passing that Parkin wrote Cold Fusion." I discuss the not-in-citation tags and other edits at Talk:Cold Fusion (Doctor Who). The article does not name the book as Cold Fusion, but it is very clearly referring to this novel. Ohwrotcod also added a WP:SYNTH tag for material that is taken directly from the source given. Bondegezou (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Simply, where does it specifically refer to "Cold Fusion"? Not your WP:OR or what you think/believe. Quite simply, where in the article does it specifically refer to "Cold Fusion" by name? Nowhere. Ohwrotcod (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. In the state when deletion was first proposed, the article was in a poor state, and I could not have argued for it. But people have taken the deletion notice positively and worked to vastly improve the article. Enough independent sources have been added to prove notability, so I now vote keep.Rankersbo (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has been improved, and tthe reasons given for deletion (by a user who's been temporarily banned for their behaviour on the page in question) now seem entirely spurious. Phil PH (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: PhilPh is mistaken, in that the one source added does not mention the topic of the article at all, only the author. I added a relevant tag, but PhilPH and Bondegezou both removed it, despite my bringing the topic up on the article's discussion page. Sadly, I foolishly broke the 3RR, and was blocked. The source(if one can call it that) still remains, but the tag has once again been removed... In other words, despite persistent deception to the contrary, the article remains unsourced. Ohwrotcod (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have never removed any tags from this article -- or even edited it, as a cursory glance at the revision history would have confirmed. Phil PH (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: 5 sources are given in the article. Ohwrotcod disputes one of these. That one has been discussed on the article's Talk page and 3 other editors concur that it does refer to the topic of this article. Bondegezou (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed.  It would be better if Ohwrotcod would stop with the personal attacks too (see also here: User_talk:Ohwrotcod) but he is relatively new to Wikipedia, to be fair.StuartDouglas (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2013 (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.