Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Doctor Who Ratings Guide


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Doctor Who Ratings Guide
Non-notable fansite. Already mentioned and described under the Fan sites section of Doctor Who, I don't see how this needs an article of its own Lurker say/said 16:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Non-notable, with over 6000 reviews by several thousand authors? Hmmm.  Nope, don't see it.  proteus71.  17:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The amount of content on a site should not be seen as a measure of notability, which refers to how much notice the rest of the world takes of something Lurker say/said 16:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This fansite doesn't need its own article, especially if it's mentioned somewhere else. In addition, the article is self-admitted vanity, with an internal link to proteus71's user page. -- Kicking222 16:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then we should get rid of Outpost Gallifrey's page as well, by this argument.proteus71, 17:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:VAIN and WP:WEB. Th ε Halo Θ 16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been involved with the site since 1999! Hello! Look at the merits of the argument before jumping to conclusions! The Doctor Who Web Guide ranks it as the 11th most popular site amongst DW fans and earned a 'Web Guide Gold' honor. As far as daily web hits go, we could ask Robert Smith? for some data. Any site where several thousand collaborators contribute to create an original work is noteworthy in itself. To say it's just a "fan" site would be comparing it to a site where at most 30 people have contributed. Also, there is no more comprehensive DW review site on the Internet. Is this not above and beyond the normal 'fan site'? As for notability: Mack Swain is not a name that most people recognize, yet there's his WP site. The same argument can be made for articles on Hugh Henry Brackenridge, geodesic, or even pho. So, I don't see your point. proteus71, 17:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: WP:VAIN, I've removed the links to my WP user account. proteus71,  17:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:VAIN, WP:NN. --Porqin 16:45, 26 July 2006 (UT
 * WP:VAIN no longer applies. WP:NN has been refuted.  proteus71,  17:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:VAIN may no longer apply, but WP:NN, and WP:WEB still do. Regarding the gold award you speek of, I can only find the doctor who web guide, which isn't a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. These things still make it not notable, and a violation of WP:WEB. Th ε Halo Θ 16:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:WEB &mdash; my bad. Sorry, I hadn't run across that one before.  Go ahead and delete it.  proteus71,  17:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is a short excerpt from WP:VAIN: Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author.  Therefore, just because you removed a wikilink from the articles page to your userpage, doesn't automatically disqualify it as vanity. --Porqin 16:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So if this page were to go away and be replaced by an exact duplicate by someone other than me, who does't know me, has never been contacted by me, etc., etc., would you apply WP:VAIN to it? proteus71,  17:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Assuming that this article didn't violate WP:WEB and WP:NN, and a random person recreated this article following a WP:NPOV, the article wouldn't violate WP:VAIN and would remain. But that isn't the case. --Porqin 16:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete repost, see Articles for deletion/Doctor Who Ratings Guide. Tim! 17:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete An article repost containing the same information/title is grounds for speedy. --Porqin 17:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: proteus71, if you can show that this website is worthwhile to have an article, I would say keep it, however, I can not find any other websites which are not related to Doctor Who that mention this one. As for your suggestion that the Outpost Gallifrey article also be deleted, you are missing what makes Outpost Gallifrey notable. Outpost Gallifrey has been mentioned in independent sources that are not centered on Doctor Who. Show us where the Doctor Who Ratings Guide has been mentioned outside of Whovian fandom, and it may be kept. Until then, I won't speak for or against deletion.  As an aside, I like Doctor Who, and love the 9th Doctor. - LA @ 18:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lady Aleena. The fact is from what the article shows right now: it's not notable. I definately know that the Guide has thousands of reviews since I myself have posted nearly every review link to the corresponding episode, audio or book.. And that one stage-play...
 * Though, a few or couple I've noticed are the same as posted on Outpost Gallifrey's review section (which is pretty understandable as to why however: the reviewers submitted to both fan-sites). All in all, it still lacks notability as forementioned above and rather randomly, I say, geodesic is notable as your other examples..
 * Delete. DrWho42 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, per above. --Brian Olsen 04:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's nothing here which isn't already (more or less) stated in the description given in the External Links section of Doctor Who. It's a site, it has lots of reviews. That's basically it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I use the website, but I don't think it meets WP:WEB. It could certainly fit in a "list of Doctor Who fan websites" overview as part of a larger article, because it provides a unique service. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 27 July 2006 (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.