Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who tie-in websites

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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who tie-in websites

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

Empty reflist, but plenty of inline external links, almost entirely to primary sources. There appear to be some sources about some of these individually, but the "Doctor Who tie-in websites" topic does not appear to satisfy notability criteria. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional websites in Doctor Who - the result was "Keep". – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thanks for pointing that out -- indeed I didn't see it before nominating. It would be useful to make some tweaks to link the two AfDs upon this one's closure, but it shouldn't have much bearing on the discussion here. As an AfD from 2005, it was operating under very different and/or undeveloped deletion processes, and in fact stands as a pretty good example of that contrast (nearly all of the comments fall under WP:AADD). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, that AfD's main value is as a bit of Wiki-history. But still, for completeness, I try to include them if I see them. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Rhododendrites: Huh. That page actually predates both of our accounts. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to series pages and/or episode pages. These don't rise to the level of being an episode-equivalent, and the article itself doesn't suggest that the page meets the WP:GNG (though I'll admit that I'm not sure how to search for references to these). That said, these pages are part of the stories told in the various episodes and should be documented in the respective pages if they aren't already - possibly the general website campaign should be documented on the series pages as well. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like a reasonable basis for an article, certainly not lacking for material. Will need additional third party refs of course, but that should not be too hard. Artw (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Artw: - Thanks for commenting. By saying it's a reasonable basis for an article are you saying it does pass WP:N (notability)? The absence of reliable secondary sources is the basis of the deletion, so the "not too hard" is precisely what we'd be looking for demonstration of to justify keeping. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's something that I'll take a look at when I get a moment. Artw (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can definitely understand why this article would be nominated for deletion. There are problems with the way that it is presented. However, I'm also a little concerned that some of the importance of what this article is about is being overlooked.

These additional websites really 'took off' during the 2006 series of Doctor Who. At the time, this was ground-breaking stuff. I don't think that many people had really seen this kind of thing before.

Similarly to that series of Doctor Who, the second series of Torchwood also had a large number of these kinds of websites that fitted in with an interactive game.

As I say, I don't think that this article's presentation of all this is quite right, though. Instead of having a section for each individual website detailing its features, I think that the article should contain a narrative of the story that people are taken through.

Perhaps, then, we should merge this into articles such as 'Doctor Who (series 2)'. However, I'd be concerned about that, too. I fear that the information implanted on a page such as that would inevitably be reduced to just one or two sentences. We have to remember that these websites tell stories themselves, which are worth documenting.

If I remember correctly, and I'm really not sure about this, but I think that towards the beginning of the television episode The Age of Steel, Shaun Dingwall's character reveals his codename. This codename could previously only be discovered after playing through the online game a week earlier. This gives you some kind of idea of the importance of these websites. If I'm right, then they did not simply provide a pong-type game to play each week, but could actually give integral information.

I'd also like to take you back to February 2008, and the very first article of the very first official Torchwood magazine. It is all about the online game that will accompany the forthcoming series. The article describes the game as "a series of new interactive episodes" and quotes the senior producer saying that the story should provide "about an extra 15 minutes of Torchwood all to yourself, every week." There is also an interview with Phil Ford, who wrote the story.

Particularly as it is billed to have "episodes", as opposed to just "tie-in websites", and as it would take a substantial amount of time to complete over a number of weeks, I rather feel as if the online experience for the second series of Torchwood should have its own standalone Wikipedia article, instead of having the last trace of it (as far as I am aware) being deleted. It is a proper story; it has the cast, a production team, and a writer.

I don't quite know how to solve this problem. The Doctor Who websites tend to relate to specific episodes, but not always. With Torchwood, there is an online adventure which delivers a separate story from any of the television episodes.

I'm voting 'keep' instead of delete or merge because there is information in this article which I don't think should be deleted, and I'm sceptical as to what a merge would look like. The article needs an overhaul, but we should not risk all the information within it. Redv Blue 13:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- You clearly know more about the topic than I, but I don't understand the policy rationale of your keep argument. Given the notability-based deletion rationale the question is almost entirely about sourcing (rather then usefulness, etc.: to what extent are there articles/books independent of Doctor Who/affiliated companies which provide in depth coverage of the websites as a unified topic (about the subject of the article as a whole rather than specific websites)? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did actually think about putting a massive asterisk next to my 'keep'. I said that the article needs an overhaul. When I said that, a change of title was certainly in my thoughts.

I don't think that the article should be about the "unified topic" of the websites so much. Why should there be a Wikipedia article with a section for the Cybus Fitness website?

No, Wikipedia instead needs to account for the stories that are told, as well as the fact that this was a new type of interactive game at the time.

To use the example of the Torchwood game, then that tells a story, just like Sick Building, a book, tells a story. In fact, it tells a story just like Attack of the Graske tells a story. That was also an interactive game, but there was actually only one instalment, unlike Torchwood's many.

My argument was that there has to be some way of keeping this information on Wikipeida. So I did not vote for 'delete', as that clearly wouldn't do that. I did not vote for 'merge', because I am sceptical about what that would lead to, as I outlined above. So, in the end, I voted for 'keep'. If you like, then, yes, it was the best option of a bad bunch for me. However, I also made it clear that I would not be supporting the status quo by saying that the article needed an overhaul.

The issue of whether the article is useful or not never entered into my argument.

With regards to independent sources, I'm afraid that I have no response to that, whether they be for the "unified topic" or otherwise. Personally, I prefer to read from official sources, such as the magazine that I mentioned earlier, so I couldn't tell you about any other things. Redv Blue 16:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 1 January 2015 (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.