Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Return of the Living Dad

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. L Faraone 00:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Living Dad

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

Unsourced article has been tagged as such for 5 years Ohwrotcod (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have now done some work on this article: added a number of citations, expanded some sections. I'll try to do some more. You get 149,000 Ghits for orman + "return of the living dad": the challenge is only sorting out which constitute reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bondegezou. Does seem odd that two Dr Who books have been suddenly nominated for deletion by the same user who systematically removed PROD tags from dozens of Big Finish audio pages at the same time, though without making any substantive edits to the pages in question. Assume Good Faith obviously, but it does seem a little tit-for-tat?StuartDouglas (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Kate Orman has written several books and there are numerous hits for her, but how many WP:RS can you find that specifically refer to this Book?Ohwrotcod (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to StuartDouglas. I already mentioned the background to this situation at WP:AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ohwrotcod. As seen at User_talk:DonQuixote#Possible_vendetta.3F, Ohwrotcod (then editing as 41.132.117.15), took offence at some edits I've been making to some other Dr Who articles and accused me of a "vendetta". There were later comments like [1] and [2]. In what appears to be a response, s/he then tagged nearly every Virgin Dr Who book as being of questionable notability in 80 minutes of editing yesterday (see [3] and onwards), then started on PRODs and (after some issues around how PRODs work) AfDs. Then, s/he removed PRODs, reverted re-directs etc. for multiple Big Finish audio articles. Further non-WP:AGF comments today include [4] and [5]. I find it difficult to continue assume good faith at that point. However, that said, this article was in need of improvement; as I said, I've now done some work on it.

Comment in response to Ohwrotcod: those 149,000 hits are for a search combining "orman" and "return of the living dad", so they are specific to this work. Bondegezou (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you need help identifying WP:RS? Fan websites, or the book being listed for sale on ebay do not count as WP:RS. The other thing is that Kate Orman is notable, and this would be listed under her various works. But where are RS that are specifically about the book? Also, please keep any perceived personal matters out of it. Ohwrotcod (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/ Redirect somewhere. Frankly I don't see any sign of out-universe notability for this book. Probably it deserves a redirecting target, not sure which it should to be the more appropriate. Cavarrone (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in response to Ohwrotcod: I have not used any fan websites or eBay listings in this article, although of course such will contribute to the total Google hits. That's why I said above "the challenge is [...] sorting out which constitute reliable sources." Editors should also see the related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Fusion (Doctor Who). As for personal matters, we should always assume good faith, but assuming good faith does not mean ignoring substantial evidence to the contrary. I refer to my summary above and comments at the Cold Fusion AfD and at AN/I.
Comment in response to Cavarrone: should the AfD decide against this article, a re-direct to Kate Orman or to Virgin New Adventures would seem most appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bendegezou stated that there are 149,000 hits. I merely stated that the majority of those are likely relating to either Kate Orman herself, or are listings on Amazon or ebay etc. I never stated that Benodegezou ever tried to insert those into the article, merely that the overwhelming majority of those 149,000 are certainly not WP:RS(or even relevant) under Wikipedia Policy..... A redirect to Virgin New Adventures sounds reasonable. Ohwrotcod (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With reservations. Article still needs a lot more work, but there are now enough reputable sources quoted to justify notability. Rankersbo (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ohwrotcod has now been blocked for 2 weeks. Bondegezou (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On appeal, that was changed to 72 hours. Bondegezou (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2013 (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.