Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who DVD Files

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 speedy delete. G11'd. "If subscribing to the magazine you get a number of bonus free gifts (etc.)" - no. This might be notable but WP:TNT. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who DVD Files

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

This article is an advert. Despite the fact that there are inadequate reliable sources for it, even if there were, this is not notable for an article of its own. As a maximum it would deserve just a mention on List of Doctor Who DVD and Blu-ray releases. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard: Cardiff born and bred | — 15:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who DVD and Blu-ray releases#Doctor Who DVD Files. There's no need to merge the current content, which goes far beyond the level of coverage detail Wikipedia can support for products without independent notability, but there's likewise no reason to resort to actual deletion over redirecting to the proper target in the article with wider context. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It needs to rewritten so that it does not appear as advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joer jamaica (talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could find some sources for it and rewrite the sections to make it sound less of an advert? Tommatkencaz (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 What a horrendous article, I'm surprised nobody has already deleted this as spam, it even includes the price per issue! Highly inappropriate content (insanely long list of issues, subscription bonuses, non-encyclopedic language -addressing the reader directly as "you"). Complete absence of independent sources, no salvageable content. --Randykitty (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2013 (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.