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 merge to Doctor Who (series 4). MuZemike 02:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who campfire trailer[edit]

Doctor Who campfire trailer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, or merge into Doctor Who (series 4), or move to a Doctor Who wiki. I like Doctor Who, 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 Wikipedia is not the right place to hold such an article. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Doctor Who (series 4), agree, this doesn't meet notability guidelines of itself. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way does it fail WP:N? Rlendog (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 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 the general notability requirements. 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has four inline citation, three of which are Doctor Who Magazine two of which are from the Doctor Who News Page, meaning it has only 2 3 actual sources. It's worth pointing out that GA criteria 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. 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. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 different sources used, since the first two come from the now defunct Outpost Gallifrey site, not Doctor Who Magazine, but even two sources can satisfy the criteria of WP:N, and do we know that there are no other sources that just don't happen to be cited in the article? Rlendog (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Has the article creator (User:Sceptre) been notified of this AfD? Per, WP:AfD, "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 WP:CRYSTAL AfD nomination, it seems appropriate when a GA is being nominated. Rlendog (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per OrangeDog, not individually notable. And just how the HELL is this GA-class? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised to see that it was a GA, but there was a valid GA template indicating it went through the proper process. Rlendog (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 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 Doctor Who (series 4) Sceptre ^(talk) 02:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I usually notify article creators, I forgot in this case. I don't see how citing Outpost Gallifrey makes a topic notable though; that seems to imply that anything mentioned in any reputable source is automatically notable, which I would disagree with. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 14:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the baseline for notability:

"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."

"Significant coverage"

Yes, the sources address the trailer almost exclusively.

"Reliable secondary sources"

Outpost Gallifrey has been held up to fit this in FAC discussions, so it should be good enough for AFD.

"Independent of the subject"

Again, OG has been held to fit this in previous AFDs.

So, we can presume this satisfies the inclusion criteria, and even if it doesn't, it's a proper spinout 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 of notability standards. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that interpretation. I can't see how citing Doctor Who Magazine, Outpost Gallifrey 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 trailer out of a few minor articles is bordering on fan cruft. To reiterate, I think merging into Doctor Who (series 4) is the best option. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the links and references to Series 4. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge "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. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge 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 (Doctor Who Magazine). I note that at Talk:Doctor Who campfire trailer, 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 Doctor Who (series 4). 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 Wikipedia's point of view, there are already 1500 articles related to Doctor Who, 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...) --Cedders^tk 21:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Certainly notable and works perfectly well as a stand alone article. Jeni ^(talk) 22:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.