Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Paternoster Gang (audio drama)


 * 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 no consensus. The discussion has gone on long enough, many harsh words have been thrown about, and essentially we're not going to get agreement on a course of action for this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The Paternoster Gang (audio drama)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability, and it has little coverage outside of fan sites. Simple announcement of its planned production is not sufficient. Fails WP:GNG, and it's WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps a redirect to Big Finish Productions is appropriate until more sources become available. Hzh (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Big Finish is most certainly not a fan site, and it has been reported on by outside sources. Big Finish articles are typically always created early, especially when multiple series have been announced, as are the tables for future series Full content is already available for the first series, and all four tables are transcluded to List of Doctor Who spin off audio plays by Big Finish; note how all future releases already have tables included, the same applies at List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish. If more sources are needed, then tag the article, don't delete the content. -- / Alex /21  04:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do note that I initially added the content at Madame Vastra, Jenny Flint, and Strax here; it was that removed it from that article and  that created the separate audio series article. A discussion exists at Talk:Madame Vastra, Jenny Flint, and Strax. -- / Alex /21  04:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note that official sites are automatically disregarded, since independent sources are required to satisfy notability per WP:GNG. The article has been redirected and prodded/deprodded, but still we only see one official and one TV site as sources, and I can't see any others apart from fan sites in search. Wikipedia is not a fan site, what fans chose to decide is entirely irrelevant, you are required to satisfy the basic criteria for notability. Fans of Doctor Who (and you declared yourself to be one) cannot trump the policies of guidelines of Wikipedia, you cannot set your own special rules just for yourselves. Also we cannot assume that there will be coverage even when it is released. If there is no significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, then it fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Take a more civil tone, and perhaps you'll find others willing to do the same. I see no tagging of the article to add more sources. Do you? Instead, people go directly to redirecting and deletion, without any proposition or discussion on what to do with the article's current content. Seems very bad faith. If you only thing that is needed is more "coverage from multiple independent reliable sources", then the article should be tagged accordingly. (Also, WP:GNG is not a policy; try again.) -- / Alex /21  11:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wrote "policies of guidelines", the "of" is a typo for "or". The guidelines of WP:GNG and policy of WP:V. It was made clear by Rosguill why it was redirected (lack of multiple reliable, independent sources), and it was entirely your decision not to improve the article when you restored it even though you are aware of the issue, tag or no tag (and the prod is a tag). I'm the third reviewer who saw a problem with the article. Hzh (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A guideline is just that, and the article is sourced per WP:V; no unsourced content is listed within the article. It was made clear, and there was no discussion or tagging on their part to help improve the article, no contribution to the already-existing discussion; they went straight to blanking content, not even moving it anywhere and redirecting it to an article when a more valid option existed. -- / Alex /21  12:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So you argument is that WP:GNG should be ignored? WP:SOURCE of WP:V indicates that third party RS are required, which the official site is not (and the only one there when you restored it, even though you were aware of the issue with sourcing). Hzh (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Identifying and using independent sources: An article that currently is without third-party sources should not always be deleted. The article may merely be in an imperfect state, and someone may only need to find the appropriate sources to verify the subject's importance. Consider asking for help with sources at the article's talk page, or at the relevant WikiProject. Also consider tagging the article with an appropriate template, such as Third-party or unreferenced. -- / Alex /21  13:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a systemic problem with all the audio plays articles, not just this one. I have already performed a WP:BEFORE can't see significant independent coverage. Hzh (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See the above quote. -- / Alex /21  13:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * More over I added OUTSIDE references to The Paternoster Gang page including an article published by Digital Spy. I endeavour more often than not to source news broken by other online media outlets rather than just the official press release. Also from a journalistic stand point. If the main publisher issues a press release. Which Big Finish essentially does. This is a first hand source, reputable source. If it was rumor or hear'say then 3 verifiable sources would be required. R2Mar (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We get a lot of articles popping up on Wikipedia which are not necessarily notable, but which have official press releases. An official press release might be a great place to source evidence about what the creator of a topic has to say about it, but it doesn't do anything to prove that a topic is notable. Notability is demonstrated by people other than those who stand to make money off it writing about it, and not just on self-published media. --Slashme (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, have been unable to find any WP:RS for a standalone article, (a redirect to List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish may be appropriate although that doesnt look too strong reference-wise), this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish be deleted due to lack of references too? If anything happened from this, then the best course of action would be to restore the edits listed in my second reply here: restore the content to the character's article. -- / Alex /21  13:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems worst now that I have seen the other articles on the audio plays by Big Finish. Many are sourced only to the official sites. Hzh (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you're going to have an issue with the thousands of television articles through WP:TV, where episode tables use minimal sources and use only themselves as a primary source. -- / Alex /21  13:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, a lot of television articles don't qualify on notability ground, particularly season and episode articles. We will eventually get round to them. Hzh (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I wish you luck. -- / Alex /21  13:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already tagged the problematic audio plays, someone will eventually start a mass deletion discussion if they are not fixed. Hzh (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mass delete. Very disruptive and disappointing indeed. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  14:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mass deletions are a normal part of the cleanup of Wikipedia when non-notable topics are created en masse. It's unreasonable to expect that every non-notable article needs its own deletion discussion when there are scores of similar articles with the same problems. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But I'm not seeing any backup plan to preserve the tables at the two "List of audio release" articles, where they are transcluded from the articles. However, I guess that's a discussion to have later, as we're only talking about the TPG audio series article right now. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  10:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Surely it's a simple matter of moving the transcluded parts to the right places and adjust the articles accordingly? You should be aware of the issues raised already, given that you edited in some of the articles already marked as failing notability criteria (or lacking sources, primary source, etc.) for years, perhaps you can start by trying to find sources so you can save these articles from deletion. Hzh (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is. Do you intend to do that? All I've seen are declarations of deletion. I'll look into the sources; I recommend you do the same, given that you're the editor with the concern. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  14:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The onus is on the editors thinking it's notable enough for an article, not the other way round. There's no guarantee that it won't be a wild goose chase. DonQuixote (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is indeed true, we are only required to perform a check that these articles can qualify on notability ground. It is a greater problem here as there are a couple of hundred articles on radio plays that rely only on the official site as source. These articles were created before the system for checking newly created articles was implemented, therefore most have not been actively checked for notability. I think some of the articles can be saved (those that cover a series of audio plays), for individual plays it would be a lot harder, though not impossible as there may be sources not available online. I would recommend putting individual plays into a series to ensure that that the series article can survive. Hzh (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete This issue popped up a few years ago. I don't remember what came of it (didn't involve myself in the discussion at that time), but the same points were raised. Whilst the entire series of works might be notable to a general encyclopaedia, each individual audio play might not be, particularly if there's really no real-world information to speak of. DonQuixote (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Independent sources almost always draw from the official sources be it network or studios. If there's an official source stating something and two independent sources stating the same, why should the official source be disregarded? With TV shows a lot of TV media websites get much of their general information from network/studio press releases, or Nielsen releases for ratings. Why would the official source be less valid than a third party one repeating the same thing? I would think the official source would supersede the third party one in almost every case for reliability. In this case Big Finish appear to be producing & distributing the audio dramas, to say they're not reliable or notable seems nonsensical to me. Esuka (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You can propose to rewrite WP:GNG and all the notability guidelines. But for now, arguing against the guidelines is not a valid argument in this discussion. Hzh (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to believe that, it also doesn't make my argument any less valid. The articles have enough notability to stay and I'll support them. Esuka (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Have enough notability" based on what criteria? Hzh (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See my initial statement, you know the one you quickly dismissed as not valid. That's my argument, you can dismiss all you want, but again, that's just your opinion. It's not exactly good etiquette to do that. I'll also take my leave from this discussion now, since my vote has been cast. Esuka (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I know what you said, but which Wikipedia policy or guideline are you basing it on? Which notability guideline supports your assertion that it is notable? This discussion is not a vote, please read WP:DISCUSSAFD, you are required to   Hzh (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Will you be replying to every "keep" decision? -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  23:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really, but the reason for this keep needs to be countered. It is the oddest reason to keep I have ever seen, given that it attacks the very basis of the notability criteria, yet claiming notability. Hzh (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: The GNG is perfectly clear: a topic needs to be discussed in detail in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. The "official" website is not an independent source. --Slashme (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notability is contextual, these are certainly notable within the context of science fiction media, audio plays of a major series such as Doctor Who are reported on, reviewed, and written about in the relevant publications such as Doctor Who Magazine and other genre/science fiction magazines and sites.219.88.68.195 (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's true that Wikipedia sees notability guidelines within the context of a subject: the GNG says that subject-specific guidelines are also applicable. However, the only subject-specific guideline that I can see that would be relevant is WP:NALBUM which starts off by saying "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Slashme (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if Doctor Who Magazine can be considered an independent source given that it is licensed by the BBC and tied in to the show? It does not appear to be independent of the subject, and might not be what we consider third party. Few of the radio play articles actually cited it, I'm just wondering about its validity as a source. Nearly all of the radio play articles rely exclusively on the official website, there is therefore a whiff of WP:PROMOTION, where Wikipedia is used to promote the products of a company that received little independent coverage. Hzh (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Although DWM is a reliable source, they don't go too much into the individual audio plays, not as much as the television episodes where they go into full detail in terms of history, production, analysis, etc. The most they have done with individual audio plays are Rotten Tomatoes-type reviews. DonQuixote (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Being licensed doesn't make it not an independent company or source. It's published by Panini Comics, and was originally published by Marvel comics. Marvel comics certainly isn't the BBC. Nor is Virgin who produced licenced novels for some time. The audios in question aren't produced by the BBC either, but by Big Finish. I really think this is a much broader discussion that should be raised in the specific Doctor Who Wikiproject, it's exceedingly bold to have gone ahead and unilaterally mass deleted multiple articles with no consensus or attempt to have the issues addressed or discussed in the appropriate way, especially when it seems you lack sufficient familiarity of the subject. It also seems bad faith when the discussion here is not even completed to have just gone ahead with that. (addressing Hzh there). DWM has covered audio plays extensively over the years so I'd say that was a mischaracterisation, and other magazines such as SFX also cover and report on them.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What is this mass deletion you talked of that has apparently been started? No one has done that yet as far as I know. The articles have been tagged for problems found with the articles, and you are free to improve those articles so that they won't get nominated for deletion. Doctor Who articles aren't exempted from normal Wikipedia guidelines on notability. Also what is it with the accusation of bad faith? Hzh (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm yes they have, 'they' meaning 'you' specifically; you've done more than just tag some articles as you're fully aware and can easily be seen in your recent edit history, you've deleted multiple pages of content, i.e. a mass deletion, so I'm not sure why'd you'd be misleading about that fact. And the observation that those actions were in bad faith is exceedingly straight forward. There is an ongoing conversation, you chose to ignore this.219.88.68.195 (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP is right. I count 22 content deletions since this discussion started. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  05:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you mean those redirected articles, no, those aren't deletions (only admins can delete them). Heavens, those pages have been tagged with notability issue for over 5 years, how much time do you expect to be given before you do anything about them? At the start of this, you complained about not tagging the article (and bad faith!), but when the articles have been tagged for so long, you did nothing about them. And I chose to redirect rather than delete, yet still the complaint! Hzh (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * delete: To remove, get rid of or erase, especially written or printed material. The content was removed from those articles and they were deleted, hence: deletion. You appear to be assuming that I'd noticed those tags. I had not. So, why is everything "you", "you", "you"? "You" seem to be doing a lot of finger-pointing and little contribution here. Unfortunate. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  11:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have no interest in semantics and how you might want the word defined, please read the various deletion guides (e.g. How to delete a page - ) and Redirects for discussion and how Wikipedia use these words. I think you can better spend your time improving those articles rather than making irrelevant arguments here. Hzh (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I kindly request you don't put words in my mouth. I never said the page was deleted. I said the content was. Cheers. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  12:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You agreed with the IP editor that those articles had been deleted and there had been mass deletion (you said when he or she claimed that I ).  If you want to argue that only the content had been removed, then you should not agree with him or her, and explain that content blanking (that is the term used when removing content) is not deletion (it is a deliberate misuse of the word in a deletion discussion). Note also that you had edited the articles tagged for notability concerns, it is therefore reasonable to assume that knew that the tags exist in those articles.  Hzh (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Blanking is content deletion. On a side note, it's always good to think through and preview your replies to prevent edit conflicts - seven edits? Just a handy note. Always nice to assume, never safe. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  12:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We are getting into sophistry here. The IP argued that I mass deleted many articles, then complained that I was  when I explained that redirects are not deletions. Do you agree with the IP there? If not, can we stop this silly argument? Hzh (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not 'sophistry' at all, it's dissembling and bad faith on your part; replacing an article with a redirect is absolutely deleting the article. -Is the article there? No. An article is its content; a page with a redirect is not an article. There's no argument to be had, that's an objective fact, and the only thing 'silly' is this ridiculous attempted denial of that.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that you are refusing to accept what the Wikipedia guides and guidelines say, in which case there is nothing more to discuss since we have no interest in discussing something that you defined yourself and has nothing to do with accepted Wikipedia usage and guidelines. Hzh (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh what utter rubbish, I've defined nothing; your 'accepted wikipedia usage' is nothing of the kind, you deleted the articles, replacing them with redirects, and were misleading about that, trying unconvincingly to conflate that with not deleting the page itself, and putting on this transparent pretense. Entirely inappropriate in the context of an ongoing discussion. You're the one acting outside guidelines no matter how you choose to dissemble. Weird use of the royal 'we' there as well.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "We" are the community of editors who have discussed and decided on the various issues affecting Wikipedia, including guidelines. There are guidelines in deletion discussion, and thus far you have avoided citing any of them, and ignored those I've cited, so what you said is largely irrelevant because we can only decide based on what's in the guidelines. Hzh (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If DWM, SFX and other magazines have covered the audio plays extensively, then please cite them as this will help determine the plays' notabilities. Otherwise if it's just release announcements and such, that's not much real-world information to base articles on. As to Hzh's deletion of articles, they've only deleted articles that already have had notability tags for 4+ years. Those are within the boundaries of good faith. Most of the other edits have been adding notability tags. DonQuixote (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That could have been a point to argue in an ongoing discussion DonQuixote, and certainly something that could be proposed in the appropriate place such as the relevant wikiproject, as has already been suggested, rather than circumventing that with a unilateral mass deletion and mass tagging with the explicit goal of mass deleting. And no, I disagree that is within the boundaries of good faith when they know full well that it they are currently involved in an ongoing discussion relating to the matter. Treating each of those articles individually is inappropriate in a case like this where it is a wider point relating to a group of articles. As per WP:NEXIST, The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable., such sources do exist, and could be sourced given sufficient time. Considering these will be in printed publications over a large span of time, and sourcing such requires specialised and considerable effort to effect over multiple articles, reasonable time should be given once the issue is raised with the relevant wikiproject who will be a much better position to assess the question. Being fans I assume some will have collections of relevant publications from which to source material, there's also guidebooks and the like.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The articles are retained in the article histories. If you can find the sources that establish the notabilities of the individual audio plays, then it'll be easy to restore the articles and add the proper citations.
 * Also, right above WP:NEXIST it states The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability...The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition...[and not] a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity.... Hate to break it to you, but most of the audio plays have not received any significant attention. DonQuixote (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "The articles are retained in the article histories." They're retained in the histories because they've been deleted. They should not have been preemptively deleted and replaced with redirects when there is an ongoing related discussion, and the issue has not been raised for appropriate discussion with the relevant project. Your assertion is not an established fact, nor does what you quoted contradict the portion I did. DWM is perfectly sufficient to establish notability in the context of Doctor Who specific Audio Plays.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, the bottom line is that if you can cite sources showing that the audio plays are notable, then that would be helpful. As to the ones that have been deleted, they already have had notification tags for 4+ years. Those were justified considering the length of time involved. The rest have been tagged just recently.
 * As to WP:NEXIST, it only applies if there are a plethora of reliable sources that just haven't been cited yet. From my own experience with DWM, there aren't any. The most DWM has done is promotions and Rotten Tomatoes-type reviews, which isn't any significant attention (ie things that aren't promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity). If you can prove me wrong, I invite you to do so by citing reliable sources that show the plays' notabilities--which would be very helpful. DonQuixote (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, using any pre-existing tags does not circumvent that there is an on-going conversation on the subject, it was pre-emptive and inappropriate to go ahead with edits, they were quite happy sitting there for that time, they will be fine waiting until a course of action has been discussed. Since the conversation and question covers multiple articles it is not appropriate to treat them individually. 'Rotten Tomatoes-type' doesn't convey any particular meaning, the fact is there are reviews is because they are notable. Release information and the like is presented primarily because they relate to the subject the magazine covers, and are of interest to the readership, not for the sake of being promotional.219.88.68.195 (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * From WP:NRV: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition.
 * That is to say, one review from DWM isn't enough--each audio play has to have gained significant coverage. That means more than one review. DonQuixote (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In point of fact,significant means sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy., a review is attention and evidence of noteworthiness, since, it's noting it. There are also reference books such as Benjamin Cook's The New Audio Adventures, and Mad Norwegian Press's I, Who range.219.88.68.195 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Multiple reviews is evidence of noteworthiness--a single review isn't. Significant means both quantity and prominence. DWM itself doesn't have much prominence in and of itself so we would need more sources from other prominent sources such as the Times or the Telegraph. However, if they were to do an in-depth article featuring research and interviews, then that article would hold much more weight because it's what they're known for.
 * As to Benjamin Cook's book or the Norwegian Press books--why didn't you point to those when you were asked to do so? Those are the kinds of sources that add weight to notability. In fact, if you were to cite those in the respective articles, that would start to help in resolving the notability issue. DonQuixote (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Having been made a note of is evidence of noteworthiness, by definition. DWM is a prominent publication in the relevant field and context, that's sufficient. A prominent sports magazine doesn't have much prominence outside the field of sports, but can still be referred to in the context of sports articles. Just as a piece on something in the top chess publication would indicate notability within that field. Something doesn't need to have universal notability to have notability. They've also published special thicker editions on each Doctor that go into their audio stories as well.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As to why I didn't point to them, I'm pointing to them now, that is the point of saying preemptive editing is inappropriate while there is still ongoing discussion (and the fact that they do exist adds weight to the earlier point regarding the Notability guidelines). Especially when it hasn't been raised with the relevant wikiproject; Where these types of print resources will be more likely to be available, and as this issue has spread beyond the discussion of just this audio and applies to broad category of articles, it's also inappropriate to be treating this one-by-one on an individual basis. There is a broader solution that could be applied with time and resources, and a consensus agreement on how to tackle it.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, DWM is prominent in its relative field--such as when they publish well-researched articles and interviews. When they do a Rotten Tomatoes-type review, there needs to be more than one source giving such a review in order for it to be notable. That's the point. If DWM ever publishes a well-researched article on, say, The Hunting Ground, then there's no question that the audio play is notable. However, if they're the only one reviewing it, then that's not notable since no one else feels the need to review it.
 * As to the other sources, please keep bringing more sources as that would help more. The point is that you'll add more weight to keeping the relevant articles if you bring reliable sources that other people can check. DonQuixote (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If they're noting it by way of a review then it is, ipso facto, notable. Again 'Rotten Tomatoes-type' is not a meaningful phrase, a review is a review. And as mentioned they are not the only source, so the repeated references to 'only one' are moot.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is meaningful in that I specifically chose that phrase to emphasise the fact that you would need a handful of those types of reviews in order for the subject to be notable (even Rotten Tomatoes admits as much in terms significant coverage--ie, the number of reviews required in their scores being meaningful). That is, "significant coverage" specifically means that the subject is discussed by a good number of reliable sources. One source by itself is definitely not "significant coverage". Overstating the significance of a single source is seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel. DonQuixote (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean it isn't meaningful because 'rotten tomatoes-type' doesn't mean anything specific afaics. And again, if they're noting it by way of a review then it is, ipso facto, notable. 'Significant' by definition means, sufficiently important enough to be worthy of attention; noteworthy. A demonstration that attention was given to it and it was considered worth being noted, in the context which it is specific to, isn't overstating anything. Other sources have already been raised, so any point about it being a single source is moot. The point is there's sufficient reason to operate on the premise that multiple sources exist, and as per the notability guideline, the criteria is that such do exist not that they are present in the article, so it that counter-acts that being the rationale for deletion. Going forward, the correct course would be to raise a discussion at the wikiproject on moving forward with adding these sources in an organised way to the articles, with an appeal for project participants with access to collections of the print resources necessary.219.88.68.195 (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a definition of "significant", but that's not the definition of "significant coverage", which is the key phrase. A single reporter showing up at a press conference is not significant coverage. Ten reporters showing up is better coverage and probably significant. Fifty reporters showing up is definitely significant coverage. It's as simple as that. So WP:NEXIST isn't about assuming such coverage exists and starting from there but about such coverage existing in the first place but not being present in the article in question. DonQuixote (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I dispute that, significant coverage can be and is also contextual, if the recognised top official magazine of the international chess organisation runs a review of a specific chess match, that can considered significant coverage within the context of chess related coverage for that match. Chess matches may not garner much in the way of mainstream media coverage, but within the context of the chess field of interest the recognised top chess magazine would be a significant enough publication to confer that. If only one media source gains an interview with a reclusive author, it's not insignificant because the only source of information related in that interview is the only interview with that person. And this is still beside the point, as you appear to be side-stepping the point that this is not a single source, others have already been pointed out, and there's sufficient to demonstrate equivalent coverage in such reference works will exist or be produced for these audios. Such is the nature of popular science fiction media. That is what satisfies the criteria of WP:NEXIST.219.88.68.195 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You fail to understand that this is a general encyclopaedia. Individual chess matches aren't notable for an encyclopaedia unless a significant amount of mainstream media covers it. Individual authors aren't notable unless a significant amount of mainstream media covers them. Yes, the interview itself might be significant in terms of the author, but if the author himself isn't notable in terms of receiving significant coverage, then he's not going to appear in an encyclopaedia.
 * And WP:NEXIST is not about what may come in future but what exists now. At present, there isn't enough coverage at all. You have to start with significant coverage and not expect everyone else to wait for it--if it even comes. If Memory Lane ever builds up enough coverage to warrant an article in a general encyclopaedia, then ideally that's when the article should be created. If it doesn't, there's always tardis wikia. DonQuixote (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or not, you keep to asserting something isn't 'significant coverage' if there's only one source, I have pointed out multiple times, explicitly and with emphasis, that this line of argument is moot since other sources for coverage of the audios have been raised, that aspect of 'significance' has been answered; individual sources can still be considered significant or not in of themselves, you could have multiple sources that do not rise to the level of being significant, and some a lot more significant than others. Arguing that DWM isn't 'significant coverage' because it's only one source, isn't a valid argument in the latter context. Nor was any part of my point about what may come to exist in the future, those reference books exist now, in the present, and I'm sure more will exist right now, in the present. The tense is a bit ambiguous there granted, but it was an additional point either way.219.88.68.195 (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is a valid argument when it comes to an encyclopaedia and especially considering the type of coverage in DWM of the topic in question. Seriously, the only one here being obtuse is you. One review in a magazine for fans isn't enough coverage for an encyclopaedia article. A few more sources can help, but not just a review in DWM in-and-of-itself. It's the most simplest concept possible. If a movie came out and it only had one review on Rotten Tomatoes, even if the review was published in the Guardian, it would not be enough coverage to be considered notable for an encyclopaedia article. The Guardian has more prominence than DWM and even it's not enough if there's one-and-only one review. It's that simple. To be clear, if the article itself was more than a review, like a well-researched article, then that would be sufficient, but a Rotten Tomatoes-type review isn't.
 * As for the reference books. It's fine if they exist now, but you can't argue that they may exist in future. That is to say, please keep finding more sources but don't expect other people to wait for you to do so. If an article lacks sources for 4+ years, then other people have justifiable waited enough time. DonQuixote (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm all for agf, but you literally just repeated the exact arguments I just refuted, and even started with "actually". No, it's not a valid argument because that aspect of 'significance' has already been repeatedly dealt with, it isn't the only source, so dismissing it as insignificant for that reason is not a valid argument. It is a significant source within the context of the subject of Doctor Who media, which is the point. And you're still repeating the meaningless phrase 'rotten tomatoes-type'; a review is a review. There's no basis for asserting a review in a major publication within the context of the field is insignificant. And while you might've argued ambiguous tense in the first post, I couldn't have been clearer that I was not arguing anything about the future. I don't know if you're being disingenuous or not, but simply repeating the same arguments when they've already been answered is not helpful. The point "but don't expect other people to wait for you to do so" is also not relevant when the proposal is that the on-going conversation be moved to the relevant project group so that a solution for the broad range of articles this discussion affects can be worked on, and the print resources available to the group be utilised. We do know those resources exist though, which is why that part of WP:NEXIST is relevant.219.88.68.195 (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, you didn't refute anything. You're failing to accept that reviews hold the lowest weight. Significant coverage in terms of reviews is that you would need more than one. What holds more weight are well-researched articles. And you're failing to understand WP:NEXIST--no one has to assume that significant coverage exists when there is none. The point is, no we don't know that such sources exist. You continually saying that they do doesn't prove that they do. What would be better is if you can cite those sources so that everyone else can verify that such sources exist. DonQuixote (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, those points were refuted. Repeating that more than one source is needed doesn't change the fact that more than one source has been presented, not merely asserted, specific examples that are readily verifiable have been cited in this exchange, so we do know those sources exist. Reviews in a significant source in the context of the relevant field do hold weight and are not insignificant, again when taken as one of multiple sources. There's no grounds for claiming that a review is too insignificant to contribute to this because it's only a review, it is coverage and in an appropriate source for this sort of content, and for that matter even the lowest weight by whatever metric of 'weight' you're applying, is weight. In the context of coverage of a fictional stories a review is adequate to demonstrate noteworthiness, since it directly demonstrates in of itself that the story was considered worthy of attention, and again, not taken alone but as one of multiple sources that cover audio stories, including those examples of reference works already cited. This satisfies NP:EXIST. There's also the point that this discussion has become broader than merely the specific audio stories in question and that a discussion should be raised at the appropriate project so that more in-depth investigation into what sources applicable to the multiple articles this affects can be had and a plan formed to apply those sources.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for providing more sources. That's a starting point. Providing more sources would give more weight to the topic being notable. And that's the point--it's better than a single source. Please provide more so that everyone else can verify that there's an unquestionably significant coverage of the topic. DonQuixote (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * An appropriate course of action has been proposed to that end, we have sufficient sources to demonstrate coverage exists, not just 'a single source', we should move forward on creating a discussion in the appropriate place so a plan of action can be formed with those and other resources available to those in the project. There's no point continuing to repeat that more sources are better than a single source when we already have more than a single source.219.88.68.195 (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails GNG. I am not convinced that DWM counts as an independent source. That may have been true at times in the past, but its editorial actions are currently policed by the BBC. Bondegezou (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * DWM is an independent source, the BBC do not publish it, the publisher Panini Comics are an independent company.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * DWM is not given in the article (and in very few articles on audio plays), so it is a moot point as far as this article goes. The only non-official source given here is Digital Spy which is just a routine announcement which really contributes very little to notability, and Digital Spy is not a high quality source. Hzh (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a moot point, it is one example of extraneous sources existing, as per the notability guideline it doesn't matter if they're in the article at present. Your subjective opinion of their notability isn't relevant, that they are notable is demonstrated by their being sufficiently worthy of attention. Also Digital Spy is one of the 150 largest websites in the UK, largest digital property of Hearst UK.219.88.68.195 (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are far larger websites in the UK (e.g. Mail, Sun, Express) that are not considered reliable by the Wikipedia community and should not be used as sources in Wikipedia. Should Digital Spy becomes an issue, then we can decide on whether it can be used as a source. Hzh (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no indication that DS is an unreliable source, under Hearst they've both won and been nominated for multiple media awards, if it's your contention that they should not be considered reliable for some reason, strangely for information that is easily confirmable, you would need to present a compelling argument with supporting evidence.219.88.68.195 (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Digital Spy piece is essentially an advertisement masquerading as journalism, and directly copies multiple paragraphs from the Big Finish announcement, starting with "the trio's adventures will see them face the first electronic automated cars in London (very ahead of their time), hordes of zombies, and ghost-like figures which are haunting Greenwich before their former selves have died..." That means that it's not independent reporting, and can't be counted towards the subject's notability. --Slashme (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 'is essentially' is an opinion, and they are literally an independent source reporting it, so yes they can and do.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish or List of Doctor Who spin off audio plays by Big Finish, for now. I am convinced the topic will warrant its own topic quite soon, likely when reviews start coming in in June, but until then I was only able to find a small handful of additional topics to prove that notability is met. With three fairly decent articles, it could be argued it is currently notable, but the content is so brief at this point, I think it would be perfectly sensible to merge that content into a section on upcoming projects on the list page mentioned above. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC) -Newspapers, -Books, Newspapers.com and all I found were fan based sites and Wikipedia mirrors. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. The sources listed in the article are press releases and not WP:RS (Gizmodo might be borderline reliable, but, again, the article is merely a press release). Furthermore, I searched Google, -News,
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of in depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. On a side note, I do not appreciate the walls of text, most of which appear to add little of substance to the discussion and at times seem to border on WP:BLUDGEON. As an administrator who occasionally closes AfDs this sort of thing is highly irritating. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.