306:. And it managed to be promoted to a good article, so even if the notability is less than normal, I'd give the benefit of the doubt to not deleting a GA. And anyway, I'm not sure deletion is appropriate at all - given the significant sourced content, at worst a merge should be considered (even the nom seems to acknowledge this). For which a merge discussion would be more appropriate than AfD. But, given its GA status, I don't even think we should consider merging unless it fails a GAR. And if merged, the content would still remain due to the sourced content, so given that it at least has marginal notability based on significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, I think keeping this one makes most sense.
633:"a forty-second television trailer" is much less than an episode, I do not see separate comment on the trailer. I see one article about the promotion campaign for the new series, including the trailer, & the 3 articles in the magazine, which is just barely an independent source. I'm not particularly concerned with sourcing--one can argue a sourcing argument in either direction. What I am concerned with in the excessive breakdown of articles into subunits. Even most characters should be ordinarily merged into combination articles . I consider GA status irrelevant to the discussion--it deals with the content of the article.
224:, and I generally try to improve DW related articles where I can. This is a well written article, but I can't see how a trailer for the series can qualify as notable. As far as I can tell, the advert has not received any advertising awards or prizes, and no coverage whatsoever in the mainstream media. Yes, it was released theatrically, but that could apply to any number of trailers, especially Hollywood films. That certainly doesn't make it notable, and Knowledge is not the right place to hold such an article.
31:
665:. If there is a merge, the article about the series would need quite a lot of work. The main reason for merging seems that it is disproportionate given coverage of other subjects, even in cult TV, and might wrongly be used as a precedent, and from Knowledge's point of view, there are already 1500 articles related to
555:
and one branding agency signify "Significant coverage" under any stretch of the imagination. If articles about this trailer had appeared in the national press and on the BBC website then it would be different. I don't dispute these sources' reliability, but constructing an article about a tv series
533:
of the series article, because merging it back would create undue emphasis on it. Instead of targeting well-sourced GAs about fiction, why not target unsourced articles with no real world information? If this AFD ends up as anything except a "keep", I would be very disappointed with the application
337:
has no mention of notability, so trying to get this article delisted through a review on those grounds would be fairly futile. In any case, even featured articles can be put under AfD nominations, so I don't think good article status should mean we automatically preserve this article's content.
365:
Point taken on the lack of GA criteria on notability (although FAs do have that criterion). I don't think that GA status should automatically preserve an article, but I think it is unusual to delete (or even merge) a GA and thus some additional caution is warranted. There are actually three
455:
Notable given the OG citations which are sufficient enough to confer notability by virtue of being reliable. Yes, the site is down. We're just waiting for
Gallifrey Base to update their link structure. And even if this isn't notable under N, it definitely counts as summary style to
403:, "while not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." While it is hardly necessary to inform the creator of every stub or
661:, Sceptre points out a good reason against merging: it might unbalance the target article, even if placed at the end. But maybe it still isn't a discrete subject, and it may make more sense in context, since the subject of the trailer is
652:
but not because there's anything wrong with the content: it's well structured and apparently wasn't created until, several weeks after web-based anticipation of the trailer and release, it was written about in a reliable secondary source
182:
591:
The adjective "significant" does not refer to how many sources it has, it refers to how much the source covers. One secondary source, or, if you want to be pedantic, two, is enough to establish notability.
506:"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."
176:
338:
Having said that, I agree with
Rlendog and OrangeDog that merging, rather than deletion, seems the best course here, but I do not think this article should remain independent.
143:
116:
111:
120:
669:, and research could be done to improve those rather than create new ones (from Doctor Who fans' point of view, work could be done to create more fanzines...) --
103:
40:
302:- Agree that it is unusual that a trailer would be notable. On the other hand, this trailer did receive coverage in multiple sources, so appears to meet
476:
makes a topic notable though; that seems to imply that anything mentioned in any reputable source is automatically notable, which I would disagree with.
197:
164:
720:
658:
107:
334:
269:
17:
158:
687:
673:
644:
625:
598:
586:
540:
498:
465:
443:
429:
416:
383:
360:
315:
292:
274:
246:
85:
434:
I was surprised to see that it was a GA, but there was a valid GA template indicating it went through the proper process.
154:
99:
91:
204:
702:
65:
46:
701:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
621:
170:
662:
580:
561:
492:
457:
354:
256:
240:
215:
78:
518:
Outpost
Gallifrey has been held up to fit this in FAC discussions, so it should be good enough for AFD.
565:
477:
339:
225:
374:, and do we know that there are no other sources that just don't happen to be cited in the article?
265:
190:
366:
different sources used, since the first two come from the now defunct
Outpost Gallifrey site, not
557:
82:
617:
439:
412:
404:
379:
311:
288:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
472:
Sorry, I usually notify article creators, I forgot in this case. I don't see how citing
529:
So, we can presume this satisfies the inclusion criteria, and even if it doesn't, it's
260:
714:
640:
400:
670:
594:
536:
530:
461:
435:
408:
396:
375:
307:
284:
137:
424:
per OrangeDog, not individually notable. And just how the HELL is this GA-class?
371:
303:
280:
666:
221:
682:
635:
681:- Certainly notable and works perfectly well as a stand alone article.
329:
two of which are from the Doctor Who News Page, meaning it has only
407:
AfD nomination, it seems appropriate when a GA is being nominated.
695:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
25:
259:, agree, this doesn't meet notability guidelines of itself.
512:
Yes, the sources address the trailer almost exclusively.
133:
129:
125:
547:
I dispute that interpretation. I can't see how citing
189:
524:
Again, OG has been held to fit this in previous AFDs.
556:
trailer out of a few minor articles is bordering on
370:, but even two sources can satisfy the criteria of
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
705:). No further edits should be made to this page.
333:3 actual sources. It's worth pointing out that
203:
8:
45:For an explanation of the process, see
616:the links and references to Series 4.
322:The article has four inline citation,
560:. To reiterate, I think merging into
7:
503:That's the baseline for notability:
399:) been notified of this AfD? Per,
304:the general notability requirements
24:
41:deletion review on 2009 October 9
659:Talk:Doctor Who campfire trailer
29:
428:, his otters and a clue-bat •
218:, or move to a Doctor Who wiki.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
521:"Independent of the subject"
515:"Reliable secondary sources"
688:22:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
674:21:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
645:16:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
626:04:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
599:00:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
587:17:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
541:12:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
499:14:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
466:02:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
444:14:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
430:01:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
417:22:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
395:- Has the article creator (
384:22:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
361:22:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
316:20:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
293:14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
275:19:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
247:18:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
100:Doctor Who campfire trailer
92:Doctor Who campfire trailer
86:02:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
737:
534:of notability standards.
279:In what way does it fail
47:Knowledge:Deletion review
721:Pages at deletion review
698:Please do not modify it.
61:Please do not modify it.
509:"Significant coverage"
214:Delete, or merge into
663:Doctor Who (series 4)
562:Doctor Who (series 4)
458:Doctor Who (series 4)
257:Doctor Who (series 4)
216:Doctor Who (series 4)
79:Doctor Who (series 4)
564:is the best option.
657:). I note that at
655:Doctor Who Magazine
549:Doctor Who Magazine
368:Doctor Who Magazine
326:Doctor Who Magazine
324:three of which are
73:The result was
553:Outpost Gallifrey
474:Outpost Gallifrey
273:
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
728:
700:
685:
583:
577:
531:a proper spinout
495:
489:
427:
426:Ten Pound Hammer
357:
351:
263:
243:
237:
208:
207:
193:
141:
123:
63:
33:
32:
26:
736:
735:
731:
730:
729:
727:
726:
725:
711:
710:
709:
703:deletion review
696:
683:
581:
566:
493:
478:
425:
355:
340:
241:
226:
150:
114:
98:
95:
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
734:
732:
724:
723:
713:
712:
708:
707:
691:
690:
676:
647:
628:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
527:
526:
525:
522:
519:
516:
513:
510:
507:
469:
468:
449:
448:
447:
446:
419:
389:
388:
387:
386:
319:
318:
297:
296:
295:
211:
210:
147:
94:
89:
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
733:
722:
719:
718:
716:
706:
704:
699:
693:
692:
689:
686:
680:
677:
675:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
651:
648:
646:
642:
638:
637:
632:
629:
627:
623:
619:
615:
612:
611:
600:
597:
596:
590:
589:
588:
584:
578:
576:
574:
570:
563:
559:
554:
550:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
539:
538:
532:
528:
523:
520:
517:
514:
511:
508:
505:
504:
502:
501:
500:
496:
490:
488:
486:
482:
475:
471:
470:
467:
464:
463:
459:
454:
451:
450:
445:
441:
437:
433:
432:
431:
423:
420:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
391:
390:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
364:
363:
362:
358:
352:
350:
348:
344:
336:
332:
328:
327:
321:
320:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
277:
276:
271:
267:
262:
258:
254:
251:
250:
249:
248:
244:
238:
236:
234:
230:
223:
219:
217:
206:
202:
199:
196:
192:
188:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
156:
153:
152:Find sources:
148:
145:
139:
135:
131:
127:
122:
118:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
96:
93:
90:
88:
87:
84:
80:
76:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
697:
694:
678:
654:
649:
634:
630:
618:Doc Quintana
613:
593:
572:
568:
567:
552:
548:
535:
484:
480:
479:
473:
460:
452:
421:
397:User:Sceptre
392:
367:
346:
342:
341:
330:
325:
323:
299:
252:
232:
228:
227:
213:
212:
200:
194:
186:
179:
173:
167:
161:
151:
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
679:Strong keep
335:GA criteria
177:free images
667:Doctor Who
650:Weak merge
405:WP:CRYSTAL
222:Doctor Who
558:fan cruft
261:OrangeDog
715:Category
144:View log
83:MuZemike
671:Cedders
595:Sceptre
537:Sceptre
462:Sceptre
436:Rlendog
409:Rlendog
393:Comment
376:Rlendog
308:Rlendog
285:Rlendog
220:I like
183:WP refs
171:scholar
117:protect
112:history
401:WP:AfD
155:Google
121:delete
641:talk
631:Merge
614:Merge
571:eshua
483:eshua
422:Merge
345:eshua
270:edits
253:Merge
231:eshua
198:JSTOR
159:books
138:views
130:watch
126:links
75:merge
16:<
684:Jeni
622:talk
582:Talk
575:avid
494:Talk
487:avid
453:Keep
440:talk
413:talk
380:talk
372:WP:N
356:Talk
349:avid
312:talk
300:Keep
289:talk
281:WP:N
266:talk
242:Talk
235:avid
191:FENS
165:news
134:logs
108:talk
104:edit
636:DGG
255:to
205:TWL
142:– (
77:to
717::
643:)
624:)
585:•
579:•
551:,
497:•
491:•
442:)
415:)
382:)
359:•
353:•
314:)
291:)
283:?
268:•
245:•
239:•
185:)
136:|
132:|
128:|
124:|
119:|
115:|
110:|
106:|
81:.
43:.
653:(
639:(
620:(
573:D
569:Y
485:D
481:Y
438:(
411:(
378:(
347:D
343:Y
331:2
310:(
287:(
272:)
264:(
233:D
229:Y
209:)
201:·
195:·
187:·
180:·
174:·
168:·
162:·
157:(
149:(
146:)
140:)
102:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.