|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
|
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. |
|
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
[edit] Notability?
This is a Good Article alright, but... does the subject really deserve its own article? To be frank, I'm not sure it passes the general notability guide, in having been the subject of significant coverage from multiple independent sources. (Out of the references provided so far, the Outpost Gallifrey coverage is pretty brief, and Doctor Who Magazine is not entirely independent of the subject.) We do have articles on particularly notable pieces of television advertising (see Category:Television commercials), but is this really one of them? If not, I think a merge into Doctor Who (series 4) might be the best option. Robofish (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly support merge - it's not remotely justifiable of its own article. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose merge - A quick google easily suggests notability. Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not to mention that a merge into Doctor Who (series 4) would be very inappropriate without losing excessive information, are we trying to take sourced, well written information away from WP now? Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think it passes as a summary style article because this much coverage of a 40-second trailer in a list of episodes which collectively add up to around eleven hours would be giving too much undue weight to the trailer, hence the spinning out. The question is, if you're talking about notability, whether the OG sources count as significant coverage (as OG's reliability and independence has been vouched for by the FAC project) or whether DWM is independent (which is a good question: Pixley's research into the subject and the ownership by Panini would seem to pass this, but the relationship with the production team and its status as the "official magazine" would seem to fail it). Obviously I'd say this as I did put quite a bit of work into it, but I think we should keep the article. Sceptre (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I've added material from Brand Republic, which should support the independent sources criterion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
