Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who: DWO Whocast (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 merge to Doctor Who Online. Daniel (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Doctor Who: DWO Whocast
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can't find any other sources for this podcast and I'm not sure if the magazines being cited really count as reliable secondary sources that demonstrate notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Doctor Who Online - I'm not positive that the site that produces this podcast is notable, itself, but just some quick searches shows that there is a far greater possibility of that than the podcast being independently notable. The website actually has some images of some of the magazine reviews being cited, and the coverage of the podcast in them is pretty slim. Redirecting to the main article on the fansite, with the potential to merge anything from the history deemed necessary, seems like the best step here.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Doctor Who Online: Barely found anything about the podcast. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep (New !vote update below): As SFX and SciFiNow are print magazines that have been around for a decent period of time. They should be considered reliable as they both had editorial oversight (SFX staff, SciFiNow staff).  Worst-case, we should WP:AGF for print-only coverage remembering  that WP:OFFLINE sources are as valid as online ones in order to not introduce WP:RECENTISM.  If the significance of the referenced coverage is in question, the history of the page, before this significant trim, at this version Special:PermanentLink/648031973, you can at least see that there was once quoted material with some substance, though more than was necessary.  (It may have been over-trimmed a bit, though.) --2pou (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Could you link to that coverage by SFX / SciFi now so we can judge whether it is non-trivial? All that the article says is that some episodes were 'rated'. This reminds me of videogames, where IIRC we require more substantial reviews and just passing ratings here and there would not be enough. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I cannot, and I never subscribed to either print magazine. I am assuming good faith myself that the editor that added the referenced coverage from the print magazines used good judgement in determining it to be worthwhile and significant.  Seems like a leap of faith, but I think it becomes more of a hop than a leap after looking at the old version of the article here: Special:PermanentLink/648031973.  In that version, there are lengthy quotes from the reviews that give me a comfortable indication that the pieces were significant coverage.  Several quotes themselves are over WP:100W—definitely more than just a rating.  Now, it is possible that the entirety of the coverage is the quoted material, but I would hope that is not the case and that the editor followed WP:NOFULLTEXT. Again, I'm AGF, but there's enough to make an informed decision (for me at least). -2pou (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI, as I mentioned in my vote above, at least one of the referenced reviews is actually available to view on the Doctor Who Online website, here. And, unfortunately, it seems that the quote from that issue that was in the previous version of this article was the entirety of the review.  So, if that is also the case with the others, then that's really not a whole lot.  Just based on that section of the website, there was substantially more coverage on the Doctor Who Online site as a whole, rather than just the specific podcast portion of it, which is why I recommended the podcast be redirected/merged to the overall article on the site.  Rorshacma (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Indeed, that's my impression as well. A single sentence or less type of coverage fails WP:SIGCOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oof. Thanks for pointing out that link.  I was definitely not searching the site for the images.  I'm now swayed the other way, though a merge is probably more appropriate since only a sentence is at the proposed target.  All aren't just a single sentence, and some are on par with Kirkus and Publishers Weekly non-plot review points--almost the foundation of WP:NBOOK--but given that the final quote was much less than the arbitrary 100 words yardstick, and that was required to reach multiple, taking out the assumption that it's only a snippet, it falls short of GNG. -2pou (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect per discussion above. Ping me if evidence of SIGCOV is found. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Doctor Who Online (updated !vote). Seeming to fall short of being notable enough for its own article, there is enough content and source to warrant at least a small subsection at the proposed target.  Without merging a little content, it comes close to being an WP:ASTONISHING redirect.  Wouldn't need much, though. -2pou (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2021 (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.