Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cwej: Down the Middle

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 delete‎. The consensus is to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cwej: Down the Middle

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable small press spinoff for a minor book character from 30 years ago. Few citations, all from press releases, Twitter and Facebook, and much discussion of things which may or may not happen in future

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Heavy disagree as someone who wrote the article. There's is an established precedent for including spin-offs such as these, such as Downtime, Sil and the Devil Seeds of Arodor, etc. Plus Cwej is very much not a minor character that was just "from thirty years ago"; he's a full fledged companion that appeared in dozens of novels in the official book range and recently appeared in Big Finish adaptations that came out around 5 or so years ago. And this article includes citations from Associated Press, Goshen News, and KHON-TV, and one of the Twitter citations is due to an endorsement from a well known figure, Katy Manning. Also, Emoteag69, you need to sign your posts with three of "~". KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't think WP:OTHERSTUFF is a strong argument to make here; if you think those subjects are less notable than the one we are discussing here, it may be appropriate to check if they meet the relevant notability guidelines. I'll address the sourcing situation below. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to add that this anthology has a section featuring Iris Wildthyme, who's had a lot of appearances that make her more than just a "random character". KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The AP news publication is a paid-for press release, that's not independent as required by WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. The Goshen News piece doesn't even mention this book. All the social media citations should be disregarded for notability purposes per WP:UGC. That leaves us with pretty much nothing reliable on the article subject; it falls way short of WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Google and ProQuest find nothing to change that. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tbf, the article does mention "a licensed Dr. Who spin-off", which is pretty obviously a reference to Cwej. Also, not to assume bad faith, but I'd like to note that Emoteag69 has only used their account to delete Who related pages (see their history in regards to Time's Champion) and they only had two or three edits before starting the discussion about deleting this page. I'm sure that this is in good faith, but it is kind of suspicious given the lack of edit history. KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It‘s not universally obvious that it‘s referring to Cwej, and more importantly, it‘s a far cry from WP:SIGCOV. If you have concerns about the nominator‘s editing behaviors, I would suggest addressing them on their talk page or opening an investigation at WP:SPI; I don‘t think an AfD is the right place for that. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, I have to admit, my fanboy obsession sometimes lets me forget not everyone shares my perception on somethings importance. There's another argument I'd like to put forward though in regards to WP:NBook and that's #5:

"The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study."

In this case, though, I'd like to refer to the "author" as Doctor Who the franchise and given how important said franchise is to the world of sci-fi and fantasy it seems like Cwej, even as a less well known part of it, fits the overall "important author/franchise". Because Cwej is officially licensed through all legal channels and it would be a gap in the record of the franchise itself if we deleted the page. KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can equate franchise and author in the way that you suggest. If we could, everything ever written within the franchise would be notable, and that seems quite far-fetched. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a fan production I might agree, but this isn't, it's an officially licensed anthology so I don't see how including it would open up the can of worms you're suggesting. It would be nothing out of the ordinary like a fanfilm or something like that, all it would be is another book in the DWU just like the many we already include. And it's not like this isn't notable; Chris Cwej is a full fledged companion and Iris Wildthyme has had a very notable publication history. KnowledgeMeansEverything (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're getting at, but none of these are the guideline-based arguments that are usually considered to be relevant at AfD. There's a pretty firm consensus on WP:GNG, with subject-specific alternatives like WP:NBOOK. Arguing that a topic is notable for reasons entirely separate from these criteria is usually unsuccessful. For example, notability is not inherited; a book about a character isn't notable just because the character itself is. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, we really need to hear from more editors in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Actualcpscm's reasoning. Widespread coverage in secondary sources isn't really there either. GuardianH (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The currently cited sources are a bunch of social media sites, announcements of release (WP:ROUTINE) and self-published materials. Searches online only returned fan sites and book stores. Does not seem to have passed WP:NBOOK. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2023 (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.