Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Trial of Davros

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, but there is no significant coverage to satisfy GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources for our purpose. Our editing policy indicates that deletion is not appropriate. For example, merger into Davros would obviously be a better way forward than deletion. Warden (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The sources don't, in my view, come close to supporting a separate article, in terms of verifiable content. However, there are sources, this is a big franchise, and amateur Dr Who productions in general do get covered in RSs. There was a multi-page feature on amateur Dr Who productions in an issue of SFX not that long ago, for instance. Also, it's not every series that has something like this published every month, which I expect covered this production. Anyway, a good merge candidate, but not something that should be deleted IMO. Someone another 10:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]