Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regeneration Who


 * 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. Insufficient evidence that this is suitable for Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Regeneration Who

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable Dr. Who convention without significant third-party coverage. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hang on, let me look up the article in the Baltimore Sun which covered this. It was covered quite a bit in the local news so if that's your only concern I will see if we can't update the article to address it with links to a couple permalink Baltimore Sun articles. Thanks.

TimeHorse (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: The convention was mentioned in the Baltimore Sun here  and Kasterborous here .   Lois  talk 22:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)  Sockpuppet vote struck --  Non-Dropframe   talk   23:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So, just to be clear (and I'm genuinely asking, not trying to sound condescending whatsoever), you believe these two sources satisfy the guidelines found at WP:GNG? -- Non-Dropframe   talk   22:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what you are referring to now. I guess that I feel that getting a slew of press coverage isn't what makes a convention "notable" to me. I would argue that the mere fact that this convention was able to get a Skype Q&A with Tom Baker makes it notable.  Also of note are the fact that the attendance reached 1600 the first year and the fact that it is run by Onezumi Events (who run | Intervention as well).  It appears that there may be room for exceptions to the guidelines, however, so I stand by my opinion.  Lois  talk 00:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They are, indeed, guidelines rather than rules set in stone. Take a look at WP:EVENT that sets forth guidelines more specific to events. You'll notice that they're heavily based on the WP:GNG. Third-party coverage is extremely important to Wikipedia as it's not the source of first-hand information. Articles must contain references and references can only come through outside sources. I've been to a Dr. Who convention myself so please don't think I'm unsympathetic to your position. However, as interesting or unusual you may be of this opinion that this convention may be, limited third-party coverage may suggest otherwise. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   00:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Convention has received notable coverage in secondary sources, reliable too, such as the Baltimore Sun. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Sockpuppet vote struck Joseph2302 (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Coverage" isn't the only guideline in the WP:GNG. Merely being mentioned once or twice, even in a very significant source, isn't enough. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   01:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Suitable for Doctor Who Wikia, but not here. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough sources, one interview is not a big deal, and it is not a large-scale event.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. See below. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * examiner.com/article/doctor-who-fans-gather-at-the-hunt-valley-inn-baltimore-maryland at Examiner.com
 * examiner.com/slideshow/regeneration-who-doctor-who-convention-at-the-hunt-valley-inn-maryland at Examiner.com
 * Guardian UK
 * BestBritishTV.com
 * EatYourComics.com
 * Paste magazine
 * CaffeineCrew.com
 * Suub.net
 * it is mentioned in the guardian only in a passing user comment, not in the actual guardian content. the two examiner pieces that you kind of listed but did not link is because you cannot link them as the examiner is a blacklisted site not usable for anything except special page mentions about itself. and the others ... really you are putting them as reliable sources? if you really really really loosely apply, paste might squeek in as something that is not completely unacceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sounds like it's fun for the Whovians, but the article is a promotion, and the event has local coverage from an august newspaper, so it fails notability. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:35, 30 May 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.