Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Curse of Davros

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 keep. postdlf (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse of Davros

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

A spin off product from the BBC's Dr Who series, in what form I'm not entirely sure (looks like it was sold as a CD). Scant evidence of notability other than a bunch of fansites, forums and blogs. Warrants a delete in my view.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same problems, lacking significant reviews or coverage:

Sionk (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment these are all Big Finish audio dramas - essentially a radio play on CD. They are indeed a spin off product but are widely distributed and have a large listenership. Artw (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I've added some reviews as references, that ought to help. Artw (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Granted the Sci-Fi Bulletin website seems to claim some form of editorial oversight. But that's hardly proof of wide distribution or large listenership! They need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Sionk (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: The Doctor Who Universe is an ever-expanding enterprise that will occasionally result in some associated pages not being up to an acceptable standard at any one point in time. As Big Finish Productions is "licensed to produce authorised Doctor Who audio plays" then I believe those audio plays inherit the inherent notability of the original production. Yes, the articles need more references but that is surely an editing problem rather than a notability one. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These arguments are getting surreal, have you never come across WP:NOTINHERITED? And to have more reliable references, they firstly need to exist, which they don't in these instances. Sionk (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability guideline states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The current article lists four separate reviews taken from 1. Sci Fi Bulletin [1]; 2. British Fantasy Society; 3. Sci Fi Online [2]; and 4. SF Crowsnest, all reasonably reliable by the looks of them. I think this article therefore satisfies the criteria completely.

Yes, I admit the WP:NOTINHERITED aspect is one I'd overlooked, but surreal? "Having the disorienting, hallucinatory quality of a dream; unreal; fantastic"? No, just incorrect. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2014 (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.