Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Works

: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 redirect to Doctor Who: The Monthly Range#2006. Redirect to the only target article proposed that makes mention of the title. (non-admin closure) — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 15:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

=[[:Time Works]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Time Works}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Time_Works Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Time Works}})

Contested PROD. Notability tag has been there for over 5 years. Fails WP:GNG: no RS coverage given whatsoever. There are no inline citations. There are 3 external links: one to a page by the company who made it, one to a fan site with a plot summary, and one to a set of user-submitted reviews on another fan site. Dr Who is obviously very notable, but notability is not inherited. Bondegezou (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment see WP:BEFORE, you are supposed to look for extra sources yourself, there are many unreferenced articles that are found to be notable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

::I am familiar with Dr Who and its many spin-offs. I can't see anything RS for this. I doubt very much there is anything. There's been a notability tag for over 5 years. I also trust my fellow editors that if they could have fixed that, they would've by now! Bondegezou (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 07:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 07:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphim System (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete I tried to find reliable source coverage and failed to find anything that would show notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I can see only some passing mentions/trivial listings in Dr Who related work and some non-notable reviews, therefore fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep has independent full reviews such as [http://audioreviews.org.uk/archives/654 Audio Reviews] and [http://www.sci-fi-online.com/2006_Reviews/audio/06-03-19_dw-TimeWorks.htm Sci-Fi online], considering the notable subject and notable voice cast there should be more available, thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The Audio Reviews link looks like a user-submitted review and not something that would pass RS. The sci-fi-online.com review, while short, does look like it would pass RS. So that's 1 RS article about it. GNG requires multiple sources. Sorry to be unsympathetic, but the claim that "there should be more available" would be more persuasive if the article hadn't been tagged for over 5 years. Bondegezou (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Although the discussion is tending towards delete, giving one more re-list to allow Atlantic's sources to be reviewed by more editors...

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.