Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lost Doctor


 * 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. czar 04:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The Lost Doctor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page is about what appears to be a piece of fanfiction, albeit one with a famous actor. The references fall far short of RS guidelines, and a Google search doesn't throw out anything more reliable. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Not fan fiction
It is not clear what is meant by 'fanfiction' (or 'fan fiction'?). The Dr Who meme is fiction of course, but this was a serious attempt to contribute to contemporary drama in a meaningful way. I will ask the author and the community concerned to dig deeper into the references and respond here - the article (as it stands) was published shortly after the completion of the first performance(s).

It is important in the local history
The development and production of this dramatic work was at the behest of, and with the support of, an extensive local community in Liverpool. It is an important factor in their recent history and dramatic efforts. It gained wider interest as will be evidenced and it was the beginning of a project that will continue.

It is an important shared matter for different groups
This work stands at the intersection of at least four perspectives: the core Dr Who fan base, those interested in Dr Who spin-offs, the Ken Campbell fan base, the community of local actors in Liverpool that supported and realised it, and it also demonstrates an idea that actual recorded material from deceased performers can be used to perpetuate their work and inspire future work. There is of course an argument that it could be incorporated into some other (better-known?) corpus of Wikipedia work, but this reviewer's view is that it is better to let it stand alone and be cross-referenced from other places.

I will revert with further comments when I have heard from other sources AndyB (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding: please bear in mind that any arguments in support of keeping the article need to be based on WP:GNG, in particular with regard to having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Unnotable radio episode that hasn't attracted much mainstream notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, no useable sources found that cover this. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2019 (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.