364:
that this AfD coms scant days after the page was ded, and improved to, as it were, 'beat' the prod. It would appear, therefore that the page doesn't meet one of the "other" criteria on Wiki~: namely, it lacks a sufficently high-powered sponsor, and therefore will be shot unmourned by those who
365:"matter". This is a documented instance of the Guinness Records getting something arguably wrong-ish, and I suggest now, as I did on the prod, that the article should at leastr emain until the next edition of Guinness, to allow an independent documented argument. --
52:
merge, and no consensus on where to merge it to in any case, but there is a pretty clear consensus that we shouldn't have this article. If anyone needs a temporary userfied copy to assist in putting something about this in an existing article, let me know.
202:
I've heard it from both sides. Anyway, as pointed out above, this blurb is mentioned elsewhere but is not notable on its own merits, and both of the "sources" are primary - they come from the broadcasters of each series, respectively.
128:
fan as the next man, but this whole "controversy" was nothing more than a tedious points-scoring exercise between science-fiction fans on message boards, and is desperately, desperately unnotable. Perhaps,
90:
85:
94:
77:
117:
245:, which could be used to support a notability claim; however, it's probably still not encyclopedic enough. The content could be incorporated into a
490:
474:
456:
438:
419:
407:
381:
369:
355:
332:
316:
300:
280:
268:
229:
180:
163:
145:
59:
159:
article on this very controversy. That's probably sufficient for
Knowledge, and the notability of this controversy is questionable at best. --
246:
394:
325:
309:
250:
415:
I can support that; it makes sense to put this in a section on
Guiness's reliability. Will update my opinion above to reflect that. --
81:
482:
as separate article. Controversy already noted at
Stargate SG-1; it can be further discussed in the article Josiah Rowe proposes. ---
263:
351:
on the independence criterion. Having reread this page and seen the guardian ref, it's only one reference away from passing WP:N.
73:
65:
190:. It's not terribly encyclopedic as is, and the way it is written is POV pushing - the article seems to support one side of the
17:
505:
36:
504:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
344:
454:
340:
per Josiah Rowe and Sean Curtin. I would note that it's not just a message-board thing; in fact, given the
390:
173:
259:
277:
227:
451:
366:
352:
54:
471:
435:
404:
297:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
242:
313:
254:
194:
over the other. It's a minor point of debate between fans - and being an avid fan of both
341:
238:
142:
485:
289:
156:
466:
430:
399:
378:
308:. Notable enough info for a mention on one of the Stargate or Doctor Who pages (or
111:
416:
348:
204:
177:
160:
141:
page, but that's at the very most. I can't see how it merits its own page here.
329:
293:
498:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
107:
103:
99:
395:
Lengths of science fiction film and television series
326:
Lengths of science fiction film and television series
310:
Lengths of science fiction film and television series
251:
Lengths of science fiction film and television series
288:. Trivial non-controversy. The current mention in
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
508:). No further edits should be made to this page.
424:It has now been noted on the Guiness page under
276:It has sources and is adequately written. --
48:. There's very little NPOV or sourced enough
8:
391:Guinness World Records#Reliability_questions
174:Guinness World Records#Reliability_questions
74:Stargate vs. Doctor Who Guinness controversy
66:Stargate vs. Doctor Who Guinness controversy
7:
133:, it could be a note somewhere on a
24:
312:), but not for its own page. --
253:which I've recently proposed. —
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
155:There is indeed a note on the
1:
237:— The dispute was covered by
296:are more than sufficient. —
525:
491:22:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
475:10:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
457:05:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
439:16:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
420:13:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
181:13:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
60:03:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
408:20:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
382:22:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
370:17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
356:09:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
333:03:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
317:03:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
301:01:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
281:01:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
269:16:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
230:16:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
164:13:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
146:11:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
501:Please do not modify it.
377:doesn't have enough info
176:as per Helm, below. --
32:Please do not modify it.
292:and a minor update to
426:Reliability Questions
235:Weak delete or merge
488:
484:
267:
58:
516:
503:
489:
450:per nom and ors
347:, it only fails
257:
223:
220:
217:
214:
211:
208:
115:
97:
57:
34:
524:
523:
519:
518:
517:
515:
514:
513:
512:
506:deletion review
499:
483:
221:
218:
215:
212:
209:
206:
88:
72:
69:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
522:
520:
511:
510:
494:
493:
477:
459:
444:
443:
442:
441:
422:
384:
372:
367:Simon Cursitor
358:
335:
319:
303:
283:
271:
247:re-structuring
232:
185:
184:
183:
122:
121:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
521:
509:
507:
502:
496:
495:
492:
487:
481:
478:
476:
473:
469:
468:
463:
460:
458:
455:
453:
452:Thewinchester
449:
446:
445:
440:
437:
433:
432:
427:
423:
421:
418:
414:
411:
410:
409:
406:
402:
401:
396:
392:
388:
385:
383:
380:
376:
373:
371:
368:
363:
362:"interesting"
359:
357:
354:
353:Percy Snoodle
350:
346:
343:
339:
336:
334:
331:
327:
323:
320:
318:
315:
311:
307:
304:
302:
299:
295:
291:
290:Stargate SG-1
287:
284:
282:
279:
275:
272:
270:
265:
261:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
233:
231:
228:
225:
224:
201:
200:Stargate SG-1
197:
193:
189:
186:
182:
179:
175:
171:
168:
167:
166:
165:
162:
158:
157:Stargate SG-1
154:
150:
149:
148:
147:
144:
140:
136:
132:
127:
124:I'm as big a
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
56:
55:Seraphimblade
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
500:
497:
479:
472:GracieLizzie
465:
461:
447:
429:
425:
412:
398:
386:
374:
361:
337:
321:
305:
285:
278:Darth Borehd
273:
243:The Guardian
234:
205:
199:
195:
191:
187:
169:
152:
151:
138:
134:
130:
125:
123:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
448:Weak delete
330:Sean Curtin
314:Brian Olsen
255:Josiah Rowe
226:•
192:controversy
360:I find it
294:Doctor Who
196:Doctor Who
139:Doctor Who
126:Doctor Who
143:Angmering
486:Leflyman
345:coverage
264:contribs
239:BBC News
135:Stargate
118:View log
464:as per
413:Comment
379:Gman124
298:Cryptic
131:perhaps
91:protect
86:history
480:Delete
375:delete
306:Delete
286:Delete
188:Delete
153:Delete
95:delete
46:delete
462:Merge
387:merge
338:Merge
322:Merge
274:Keep.
170:Merge
137:or a
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
467:Helm
431:Helm
400:Helm
397:. --
393:and
349:WP:N
260:talk
241:and
198:and
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
436:ers
417:GJD
405:ers
389:to
342:bbc
328:. -
324:to
249:of
178:GJD
172:to
161:GJD
116:– (
470:--
428:--
262:•
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
50:to
434:.
403:.
266:)
258:(
222:n
219:a
216:y
213:k
210:r
207:A
120:)
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.