Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Discontinuity Guide

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Discontinuity Guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

While this book satisfies the threshold criteria for WP:NBOOK there are no reliable sources that it passes any of the other criteria. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's widely used as a citation in other articles; it is therefore of value to know what kind of publication those articles are citing, what its background was, etc. That makes the article valuable to include here. Jheald (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well... being a citable source doesn't always guarantee notability. We've had a lot of subjects that could be used as a RS (books, authors, professors, etc) but that in and of itself doesn't always mean that it would pass notability on that guideline alone. We'd really still need coverage in secondary, reliable sources in some context to help back up claims that this is especially noteworthy and exemplary in the field of series guides. In many cases if that doesn't exist, we'll list the book in a "further reading" section or in a "List of Doctor Who books" type article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've found some reviews and mention of it, so this does pass notability guidelines. However the article really, REALLY needs to be cleaned and re-written, as the current version is pretty much unsourced and reads like something you'd find on a fan wikia. This is fine for fan wikias, but you've got to remember that you have to not only be able to source things but you also have to be able to keep the tone neutral and encyclopedic. It just comes across a little fannish and it also doesn't really put things across in layman's terms. While it's more likely that people who will come to the page will be at least passingly familiar, the layout does sort of read like it'd alienate someone who isn't aware of the series. It doesn't need a lot of cleanup, just some tweaks here and there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The format utilised in the book (Roots/Goofs/Dialogue Triumphs & Disasters/Fashion victims etc) has been adopted by the BBC for their official 'Classic Who' website's episode guide - each entry includes a verbatim (and attributed) 'Bottom Line'... Example: The Daleks. 217.33.79.34 (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'm not sure whether the BBC having reprinted the book's contents on its Doctor Who website is an argument for or against Wikipedia having an article on the book. But it does show that the book was sufficiently well-regarded that the keepers of the subject's copyright were willing to give it an official imprimatur by hosting it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, especially given the cleanup begun by Tokyogirl. Clearly meets criterion N1. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails notability. One of several unofficial guidebooks. The authors are notable, and information on this can be included on their own articles. 41.135.172.4 (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG Keep - according to the WP page linked, it only HAS to meet one of the criteria. Even the nominator sa\ys it does, so I have no idea why this is even here. 94.195.107.134 (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NBOOK states that passing the threshold criteria is not sufficient for notability. Whether it passes any of the other criteria is up for debate here. I am still to be convinced. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 11:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Google Scholar shows this book is cited by at least 5 academic works.[1] 3 of the 5 are "Doctor Who"-specific. The 4th is DiPaolo's book War, politics and superheroes: Ethics and propaganda in comics and film. The 5th is Bramwell's work Pagan themes in modern children's fiction: green man, shamanism, earth mysteries. 2 non-Who-specific academic citations aren't much but they are something. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this turns out to be "delete" I would much prefer a redirect with the edit history preserved. The problem is that I can't think of the best place to redirect it to. Any target would have to at least mention this book or it wouldn't be a viable target. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, given the cleanup by Tokyogirl. Bondegezou (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - in the event this article is kept, can someone with time and sufficient WP:RS clean up the 'season 6B' section. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:58, 28 April 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.