Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who 2009 (fan series)


 * 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. Flowerparty ☀ 00:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who 2009 (fan series)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - Unreleased fan series of questionable notability. No reliable sources - only blogs, forum posts, and YouTube links. Google search turns up no major reliable third-party coverage. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Much as I am inclined to give Doctor Who related material the benefit of the doubt, there is nothing here to indicate notability yet. If they do ever complete a whole episode (never mind a series) then I can see it standing a chance of becoming notable but it certainly should be deleted for the time being. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only remarkable thing so far is that the BBC hasn't shut it down - presumably because it's raising money for charity.  No idea whether it's ever going to appear though - one of the blog sources says that ep 1 was pulled because the FX were still in post-production, which doesn't bode too well.  Delete, and recreate a much better article with proper sources if this proves to be a successful enterprise.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all Bad sources, WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Certainly get rid of it here on the basis of no legitimate sources to establish notability; no coverage whatsoever making this anything better than crystal-balling. Ironically, its very presence on Wikipedia may bring it to the attention of the BBC, who will in all likelihood crush it anyway as a breach of copyright. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Outpost Gallifrey haven't picked up on it; no reason for us to either Sceptre (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I started this page because this project is gaining a lot of attention in the Doctor Who fan community. The BBC copyright stuff seems irrelevant, as the BBC has a track record of allowing and even supporting Doctor Who fan projects. I understand the issue that it has yet to be released and has no definite release date yet, but the creators say the release date will be announced very soon. I totally understand if this gets deleted, but I honestly believe this has the potential to be nearly as big as Star Trek: Phase II, which has an article here. That article has slightly better references, but not by much. The fact is, the Doctor Who fan film community is a growing one. It doesn't necessarily have major coverage yet, but I still think this project is worthy of an article. Ronson87 (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non=notable fan future maybe film series? Like a vio of SPAM, BLOG, NOT, CRYSTAL... sheesh. del and burn. ThuranX (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unless some reliable source reporting on it can be found. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Reasons: 1. (Good sources) The Doctor Who 2009 fan series has been covered twice by Fan Cinema Today, a reputable site which is ran by the author of the internationally released book "Homemade Hollywood", and the entry references the site 2. (Good Sources) This article cites more sources than the article for the "Star Trek: Phase II" fan series and many other fan series articles. 3. (Good Sources) Google search turns up numerous articles and info on the project for me. 4. (Not crystal-balling) The article only reports in a non-bias manner on events or coverage that has already occurred and references materials that have already been released. 5. I found out that members of the Outpost Gallifrey Staff work on the project, and this may be a reason it has not been covered by them (i.e., so as not to appear to be bias), Doctor Who Online (which is as notable as Outpost Gallifrey) asked the producers through The Doctor Who Forum to contact them about promoting the series. 6 (Notability) The project's facebook page has nearly 700 fans, the video of the first trailer received over 25,000 hits, and the series YouTube Channel became #14 Most Subscribed of the week the very day it went up. This is all evidence that it is a popular fan series that has general awareness. 7. The series website links to third party articles written about them. These articles range for short snippets to full on interviews with cast and crew, many of which have not even been referenced here yet. 8. The producers of the series have stated in several places that the first episode is finished and awaiting release on the new date they have voted on. They have just not pubically announced the date because of their marketing plan.MegabyteModem (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC) — MegabyteModem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Much of what is written above is covered by WP:AADD. The Phase II argument is a classic example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Facebook/Youtube argument is a classic example of WP:BIG. The entire article is based on WP:CRYSTAL as the film/potential film has yet to be released and covered in any reliable sources; note that none quoted above classify as reliable sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Seeing how the trailer and other publicity materials exist for the production it is not WP:CRYSTAL because the article reports on those. Fan Cinema Today falls with the description of WP:RS (In fact all the references outside of their own website fall within the description that's given with in the rules IMO).MegabyteModem (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That is utter nonsense. Not all websites outside of the one in question fall within WP:RS; in fact, the vast majority do not. This is why commercially-published print sources are what you should be looking for for preference, as absolutely anybody can set up a website and decalre themselves an authority. I see no evidence that Fan Cinema Today falls within WP:RS; has its content been published ina third-party source for instance? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentYes, SciFiCannel Magazine among a dozen others. Clive Young and Fan Cinema Today are an athourity on Fan Films.MegabyteModem (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:BIG says nothing about citing an item's popularity at other sources, it only says that an item's popularity on Wikipedia is not relevant. So the YouTube/Facebook argument is not covered there. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't seem relevant either, because this project is not merely speculative, it is in production, and nothing mentioned in the article is based on speculation. If I had written, "The first episode is going to come out soon and is going to be hugely popular," then yeah, that's crystalballing. But writing that a project is in the works and scheduled to be released this summer is not crystalballing, especially when this information references major sources for the medium. Fan Cinema Today is definitely a reliable source according to WP:RS, where it says referenced authors must be considered "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Ronson87 (talk) 2:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You appear to have totally failed to read WP:BIG. WP:CRYSTAL does apply, as the notability of this fan film is yet to be determined as it hasn't even been released yet. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You're right, I was accidentally reading WP:POPULARPAGE when I posted that response. Sorry about that! As for WP:CRYSTAL, according to your logic, every page for a movie/album/TV show that has yet to premiere should be deleted. Doctor Who 2009 has already gained notability due to the trailers and the hype surrounding the project. Regarding WP:RS, if Clive Young of Fan Cinema Today is not a notable source for a fan film, then a notable source does not exist. This guy literally wrote the book on fan films. Ronson87 (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - You keep saying that the series is notable, yet aside from one source of questionable relevance, you have yet to show this. Where are the multiple sources? If this thing is as notable as you say, it should be getting coverage all over the place from multiple reliable sources, like, for say, The Hunt for Gollum - I'm not seeing that... MikeWazowski (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Completely and utterly non-notable. Angmering (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No notability established.  Appears to be chiefly speculation about things that have yet to happen, and may not ever, all cited from either primary source or a few forums, not reliable sources. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:20, 1 June 2009 (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.