Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who Live


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who Live

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested PROD. Unreferenced stub with ambiguous notability. I dream of horses (T) @ 18:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Please refer to WP:BEFORE before nominating something else for deletion. The first thing that google spat out was the show's website, it took all of a minute to see that it opened 3 nights ago in the Wembley Arena and to see that the show has garnered numerous pieces in the UK press, notability is blatantly obvious to those who'd care to look. Someoneanother 20:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I found all that as well, within 5 minutes of looking. Is it just laziness to list for deletion instead of going out and looking for sources and additional information. This article should never have been nominated.scope_creep (talk) 20:23, 11 october 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. I'm sure that the article will in short notice include a section summarizing reviews both from "mainstream" sources such as The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Daily Express and, er, The Herts Advertiser, and reliable sources aimed at the specialist audience such as SFX and Den of Geek; not to mention previews from Scotland on Sunday, Doctor Who Magazine and plenty of other sources, on- and offline. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All of these "reviews" simply amount to the standard UK-press back-slapping for the BBC. They do not represent anythinbg like the sort of critical and objective analysis that Wikipedia would expect.  They are, in fact, mere "advertising puff" such as would support an AFD-delete for almost any other commercial product.  If this is till around in a year's time, or five, then it may be time to write up such subsidised fan-cruft. 62.25.109.196 (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read the Telegraph review? Although the tone is light, I'd say that it contains substantial "critical and objective analysis" — for example, "the resulting jamboree – dazzling, deafening and brazenly gratuitous – is probably best appreciated by 11-year-old children and younger, or indeed those with an equivalent mental age" and "But to cite the deficiencies of Doctor Who Live is to miss the point entirely. " This is a proper review, no different than the sort of material that has been used to take the very similar Doctor Who Prom (2008) to GA status.  Of the links I provided above, IMO only the Scotland on Sunday one can fairly be described as "advertising puff". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Newspapers cover stage performances, there's nothing unusual about the newspaper attention. Den of Geek is a UK-based online sci-fi magazine, SFX is in print and online and is again UK-based, why wouldn't they cover Dr. Who? There is notability here in spades and there are plenty of reliable sources which contain obvious criticism. Someoneanother 15:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The notion that Wikipedia requires reliable sources to indulge in "critical and objective analysis" in order to qualify is an interesting one that, nonetheless, is nowhere found in policy or guideline. I want a better reason to disqualify organs such as The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph as reliable sources than an anon IP's dislike of the subject of the article and the newspapers' coverage of the same.   Ravenswing  16:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep please. Shouldn't have been nominated.htom (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This is a ludicrous nomination. --Divebomb (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2010 (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.