Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Gammas


 * 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 in Australia. Spartaz Humbug! 06:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Double Gammas

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable award for possibly non-notable organisation. No reliable sources, nor assertion of notability. No gNews hits for "Double Gammas" or "Double Gamma". Google hits only return other fansites, blogs and facebook. Has been tagged for notability since its creation two years ago. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is this happening again? It's a twenty six year old national award. Albeit a fan award. It's as notable as any other such award, and is currently in its latest round for judging. What other sources are relevant? MartinSFSA (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. long living does not make them notable. other such awards are also non-notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There's an entire category of not just fan awards, but Australian fan awards. Are you hostile to their existence too or merely singling Doctor Who fandom out? MartinSFSA (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean Category:Australian science fiction awards? Unfortunately I'd have to say yes. Of the six distinct awards named in that category, two appear to be former incarnations of a current award, one is a subset of a current award, and only one has any reliable sources at all (the Aurealis Awards, although all the WP:RSs are all in sub-pages and the whole set could do with a decent merging). Seriously, I love Doctor Who as much as the next sci-fi die-hard, but we're merely hostile to the existence of unverifiable articles here at Wikipedia.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't identify yourself with "we" or "Wikipedia", it's just the two of you tagging and re-tagging. I'm not pleased at having to argue this all over again and I'll be interested to see you continue this spurious argument on to the Hugos and Nebulas. Wake me when we get there. MartinSFSA (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. The Double Gammas are one of the more important awards in Australian SF fandom where Dr Who fandom has traditionally been strong. It makes sense to cover them here as they have historical value in terms of those communities. Alternatively I can see the general content about them being merged with Doctor Who in Australia, which has discussion about Doctor Who fandom in Australia, although I'd rather see them stand alone due to weight issues, as that's a more general article. - Bilby (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support merge - A merge to a more general article would eliminate the problem of having only self-published sources. If reliable sources become available there is nothing to stop the page from being reestablished.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per nominator's agreement with Bibly's proposal. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable fan award. Then redirect to digamma. Reyk  YO!  01:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - Even if it is the most important Australian Doctor Who fandom award in the whole wide world, that doesn't strike me as being terribly notable.Minnowtaur (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The South Australian Club alone's been in all the local print media, even a notable defunct one. MartinSFSA (talk) 13:00, 4 July 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.