Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Trial of Davros: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Alzarian16 (talk | contribs) →The Trial of Davros: Comment |
m Listing on WP:DELSORT under Science fiction |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
::Yes, but there is no significant coverage to satisfy GNG. [[User:Jezhotwells|Jezhotwells]] ([[User talk:Jezhotwells|talk]]) 07:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
::Yes, but there is no significant coverage to satisfy GNG. [[User:Jezhotwells|Jezhotwells]] ([[User talk:Jezhotwells|talk]]) 07:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
*I'm in two minds about this. The current article is much better written than many I could name, and there are additional sources available - the [http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2005/03/18/160705_trial_davros_event_feature.shtml BBC], [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/10/daleks_invade_blackpool/ The Register] and the [http://menmedia.co.uk/tamesideadvertiser/news/s/385076_guess_whos_going_to_appear_on_stage Tameside Advertiser] all covered it around the time of the 2005 performance, and there should be more offline if anyone knows where to look (local paper archives from 1993?). But I can't quite shake off a nagging feeling that this might not be enough to pass [[WP:GNG]], although one more in-depth source would probably convince me. [[User:Alzarian16|Alzarian16]] ([[User talk:Alzarian16|talk]]) 18:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
*I'm in two minds about this. The current article is much better written than many I could name, and there are additional sources available - the [http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2005/03/18/160705_trial_davros_event_feature.shtml BBC], [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/10/daleks_invade_blackpool/ The Register] and the [http://menmedia.co.uk/tamesideadvertiser/news/s/385076_guess_whos_going_to_appear_on_stage Tameside Advertiser] all covered it around the time of the 2005 performance, and there should be more offline if anyone knows where to look (local paper archives from 1993?). But I can't quite shake off a nagging feeling that this might not be enough to pass [[WP:GNG]], although one more in-depth source would probably convince me. [[User:Alzarian16|Alzarian16]] ([[User talk:Alzarian16|talk]]) 18:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction|list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>— [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 00:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)</small> |
Revision as of 00:42, 11 August 2011
- The Trial of Davros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable amateur play, no WP:RS to satisfy the WP:GNG, PROD declined by article creator. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Note: It's not accurate to say that there are no RS. There's a link to a BBC News interview with Terry Molloy in which he discusses the play. It's debatable whether this constitutes "significant coverage" per GNG#1, but it's clearly a reliable source. --Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but there is no significant coverage to satisfy GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm in two minds about this. The current article is much better written than many I could name, and there are additional sources available - the BBC, The Register and the Tameside Advertiser all covered it around the time of the 2005 performance, and there should be more offline if anyone knows where to look (local paper archives from 1993?). But I can't quite shake off a nagging feeling that this might not be enough to pass WP:GNG, although one more in-depth source would probably convince me. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)