Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kasterborous.com


 * 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   speedy delete under G7, per the request of the article creator. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Kasterborous.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable podcast/website, could not find reliable independent sources Deunanknute (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -I am sorry you feel that this website is not notable, I have dug these few links up even the BBC have mentioned it on their site.

Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BBC
 * Wales online
 * Salt Lake Comiccon
 * IMDB
 * Website ranking


 * The first two only barely mention the site, the others are not sources that establish notability. There needs to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:GNG. Deunanknute (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In comparison though Doctor Who: DWO Whocast and Doctor Who: Podshock do not seem have reliable sources either. It must be reliable or it wouldn't be used as a reference in a book Torchwood Declassified: Investigating Mainstream Cult Television Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly comfy with those two other articles getting brought to AfD. In the meantime, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  Nha Trang  Allons! 18:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 22:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice: I'm a bit baffled that an editor with over 6,000 edits and 400+ page creations needs reminding of the notability guidelines. The GNG, of course, requires "significant coverage" from multiple reliable, independent, third-party sources.  The only sources in the article are the website itself; of the one Kelvin 101 put up here, IMDB as a user-submitted site isn't a reliable source, the BBC America and Wales Online sources runs afoul of the guideline stating that a source consisting only of quotes from someone associated with a subject can't support the notability of the subject (and in any event it doesn't discuss the subject at all), the Salt Lake Comic Con source certainly isn't reliable even if it didn't redirect to the subject's website (which it does), and a website counter doesn't qualify as a reliable source either.  (It's not impressive that the website gets only ten times as many monthly page views as my obscure personal blog.) Honestly, Kelvin, if you haven't familiarized yourself with the requirements of the GNG, it's high time. In the meantime, if you can find reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail, let us know.  These casual mentions don't qualify.  Nha Trang  Allons! 18:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CHEAP, Redirect/Merge into Doctor_Who_fandom. Pax 02:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete (no redirect) - a section under fandom ought to discuss the subject of websites etc in general terms. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I forget to add reason - per lack of GNG as described above. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:36, 20 February 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.