Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Season 6B (2nd nomination)


 * 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. -Scottywong | confer _ 20:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Season 6B
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No reliable third party sources to WP:verify notability. Previous nomination reached no consensus, but that was based on a mistake. The Discontinuity Guide isn't an independent source, because it's written by a few creators of several Doctor Who series. (Paul Cornell, Martin Day). It's telling that it's basically the same content as published on the official Doctor Who BBC website, which is also insufficiently independent. Again, the WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (and "independent" is further explained at the essay Independent sources). Shooterwalker (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (Comment:) This is really little more than an unofficial fan theory, and one that (given the lack of sources) can hardly be considered worthy of its own page. Merging may be a viable alternative to deletion (and was mooted at the first AfD), but I am uncertain as to the target – perhaps List of non-televised Second Doctor stories?  Super Mario  Man  23:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Second Doctor based on the arguments of Arxiloxos, GraemeLeggett and DonQuixote below.  Super Mario  Man  15:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge this to an appropriate target, based on the arguments in the last AfD. This is significant enough that it needs to be somewhere in the coverage. Second Doctor seems the most logical place to me, but if someone has a better idea, it's fine with me.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment:Isn't this rather a case of "keep nominating till it gets deleted"? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Second Doctor, but no redirect required. Not a notable topic of itself. A single page in the deliberately humorous and personal opinion orientated Discontinuity Guide does not a valid theory make. Or Delete as my compromise positionGraemeLeggett (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge as per above. Not a notable topic in itself but mentionable in the Second Doctor article. DonQuixote (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd be against it "polluting" the second doctor article with the current level of poor sourcing. It's also not relevant to any other article as it does not really provide insight into element of production of Doctor Who between 1963-1989. The only place I can think of it being used is somewhere like Doctor Who fandom. Eshlare (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No external sources. Since when did Wikipedia start hosting fan fiction? FurrySings (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree totally with Furrysings. I don't even like the idea of mergin it into the Srcond Doctor article. CAn anyone identify the original source of this interview ? 41.133.0.68 (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's an essay on the topic in About Time volume 6, by Tat Wood, which I think should count as an independent source. There will be any number of articles covering it in Doctor Who Magazine, too.  The Doctor Who fan-industrial complex is rather incestuous: prohibiting people who have written published Doctor Who fiction as sources for non-fiction would have implications.  Morwen - Talk 19:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge. But if "merge" then merge into The Discontinuity Guide article rather than the Second Doctor article. Oh, and the About Time essay is basically poking fun at "Season 6B"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.16.211 (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment In brief answer to a question just a bit above, "fanzines/fan fiction" can't really be called third-party, neutral, reliable sources. Hence a lot of resistence to accepting them, blogs, self-registries, interest articles, self-help listings, etc as sourcings.  People tend to "identify" or "create" ideas and situations that become self-important, then they try to export those ideas unto others for validity.  Plus these "fan-mindset" thinkers seem to crawl out of the woodwork with penpals in hand when their pet projects get queried.  Яεñ99 (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - and then redirect to Television program. The AfD nominated article notes, "Season 6B is a theory related to the long-running British science fiction television series Doctor Who to solve some continuity problems within the classic series." There is no WP:GNG source materials to support that or any other thing written about the topic in Wikipedia, so there is nothing to merge. Instead, season 6B is a term of art used in the television industry. In the March 25, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article entitled, "Vacation's Over; 'the Sopranos' Returning for One Last Shot," they note "The last nine episodes will be part of what is being called either "Season 6, Part 2" or "Season 6B," depending on which page of www.hbo.com you consult." In the June 24, 2011 Anniston Star article entitled, "Pop Cultured: When summer and the Braves get you down, just flip around, they note "Futurama is splitting its seasons similar to how South Park does, doing half a season at a time, so this is season 6B for them." Delete and then redirect to Television program. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * By that logic, do you also think there should be redirects for Season 5B, Season 6A? Nobody seems to have considered those worthwhile making.  A redirect to the The Discontinuity Guide itself would seem to make more sense.  Morwen - Talk 18:10, 25 September 2012 (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.