Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who: The Complete History


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who: The Complete History

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable part work. Nthep (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, its just as notable as any other partwork, published by Hachette and Panini, two of the biggest publishers and about Doctor Who a big entertaiment franchise. Whats so non-notable about it? Many other partworks of its kind have their own page so why shouldn't this one? Matt14451 (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Try reading WP:NBOOKS and come up with some sources that describe why this particular Dr Who topic is notable. Just because Dr Who is a notable subject doesn't make every individual article associated with it automatically notable.  All I can find are press releases about it and some blog posts. Nthep (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that just because its Doctor Who it deserves an article, its a note worthy partwork just like any other which has an article. Matt14451 (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I propose giving it a stay of execution, at least for the time being whilst discussion on the talk page is ongoing. For my part, I have submitted proposals for the future of the article but it needs discussion before a consensus is reached. But, in its present state, I agree with the nomination. Aw16 (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The list include, The Official Marvel Graphic Novel Collection, DC Comics Graphic Novel Collection and Judge Dredd: The Mega Collection  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC) It isn't just four articles, it all of those in the catagory you mentioned. Matt14451 (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete with no prejudice. Regardless of the assertions above, there is no citation demonstrating significant coverage in secondary sources, so this is not ready to be a Wikipedia article.  If at some future time this work gains some attention and coverage that can be verified, a page can be created then.  Recommend article creator place a copy on their sandbox if s/he wishes to save any information.  -Markeer 23:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:GNG. no reliable sources available for notability. maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON, argument by article creator about other partwork articles (please list them so we can look at them:)) doesn't hold up ie. WP:WHATABOUTX. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm going to withhold from voting on this, but intead I'll say this: whatever happens here in this AfD may very well affect all the articles in Category:Partworks (especially since it was expanded from one article in question to four). If you do choose to delete this/these article(s), you better be prepared to justify why they should be removed, and the others can stay. --JB Adder | Talk 04:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply to Comment If this or other articles fail to follow Wikipedia's guidelines, including general notability, citation, requirement of secondary sourcing (I highlight this as I note a great many primary footnotes on these articles) or verifiability, then that IS the justification for a consideration for AfD. Expecting an article to follow the same guidelines that apply to every single article is not a negative trait. -Markeer 23:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Of which I am fully aware. I should apologise for making my comment sound like a foretelling of doom. Granted, in a sense, it is, especially for the Partworks category itself, which may very well die after this AfD. But I also know this AfD could be taken as a grand sweeping argument for removing/keeping the partworks articles wholesale. --JB Adder | Talk 02:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Partworks are a staple of British magazines, they are seen in most newsagents, as should definitley stay apart of Wikipedia. I believe that they should, including this one, should stay. Matt14451 (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I know I'm not really much of a Wiki-editor (I only change the odd typo here or there, and very infrequently at that), but I'd just like to say I think this article will probably become notable given time - it does feel like it's been put up just a bit too early though. But since it's here now, give it (and the part-work collection) a chance to grow before voting on its deletion? KoopaCooper (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this table will grow every fortnight with more information, plus possible specials and information. Matt14451 (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, S warm   ♠  22:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   08:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Not much more needs to be said, more information will be coming soon so that the table will have at least 80 rows full of information. Matt14451 (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's still no reliable, independent sources about this publication other than merchandising press releases and blog posts. That it exists is not in question but there is still nothing coming forward to say that this is a notable publication. Nthep (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll have another look. Matt14451 (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems like a decent article to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WelshWonderWoman (talk • contribs) 14:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I've held off from voting until now to see if any improvements have been made to the page. It is clear that there have been no clear improvements in finding external references and also little improvement in content beyond a simple tabular list. It's my opinion that this subject can be easily covered in the article of its parent publication, Doctor Who Magazine, at least until the list of issues/volumes exceeds a sensible amount. Then we can think about beginning a page entitled "List of issues of Doctor Who - The Complete History". But as it stands, I don't think the article holds enough merit to be considered as a standalone. Most definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Aw16 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete because it just doesn't have the coverage for notability. I think editor KoopaCooper's remarks above show, that as editor Aw16  also concluded, it is a case of WP:TOOSOON.  --Bejnar (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2015 (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.