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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tat Wood[edit]

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

Tat Wood's only claim to notability is the fact that he has written/edited a few Doctor Who articles, hardly enough to justify a Wikipedia article of his own. G S Palmer (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This [1] helps establish notability. It should be pointed out that this was only nominated for AfD because of a dispute on another page. [2]. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I nominated it because of this. G S Palmer (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The About Time series of books are not merely "a few articles", but a multi-volume critical history of Doctor Who. They are widely cited and discussed in scholarly analyses of the programme, such as Doctor Who and Philosophy and the works of Phil Sandifer. Clearly meets criterion #1 under WP:AUTHOR, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination statement is at the very least disingenuous. Eric Corbett 11:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple professional reviews have been posted to talk pages. This Whoniverse dispute seems to be getting more lame as time goes on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the talk page in question is Talk:Whoniverse#Notability of Tat Wood. (That might not be immediately clear to someone coming to this page for general AfD purposes.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was the one who tagged this biography as being of questionable notability back in 2011, but based on what I've seen now I think he clears the (relatively low) bar set by WP:BIO. Mind you, that's only a judgement on whether this article should be kept, not on whether or not he should be used as a source in another article. (Disclosure: I was notified of this AFD by User:41.132.48.255 [3].) Robofish (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments and trout slap for misleading AfD nom statement. Montanabw^(talk) 02:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF Eric Corbett and Montanabw. It was not my intent to be "disingenuous" or "misleading". G S Palmer (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, an link to an essay I've never seen before! Thanks very much! Eric Corbett 00:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Glad to have been able to help expand your horizons! G S Palmer (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mild delete. I haven't followed the Whoniverse debate referenced above. I have, however, met Tat Wood on many occasions. This probably is sufficient bias for me not to contribute here! But, FWIW, I struggle to see how this article merits inclusion. There are no citations provided which are about Tat from a biographical perspective: this article can never expand beyond a stub because no such citations exist. The article has three citations: (1) is by his publisher, (2) says he edited a fanzine (does it say anything more than that?), and (3) is a fanzine article he wrote reproduced in a book of fanzine articles. That does not meet WP:GNG. The idea he meets WP:AUTHOR #1 presumes Dr Who fandom is a sufficiently large scholarly community for this to apply, and then you have to argue that Tat is considered an important figure in that community. Both of those seem very debatable to me. There are, I'm sure, several reviews and citations of the About Time series, but then have an article on them. But maybe age has turned me into a deletionist. ((Disclosure: I was also notified of this AFD by User:41.132.48.255. I don't know who this is, and I wonder whether they thought I'd rush here to say "keep"!) Bondegezou (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Referring to "Doctor Who and Philosophy and the works of Phil Sandifer" or the About Time series as scholarly, it seems to me, is pushing the definition of "scholarly". Doctor Who: The Unfolding Text is scholarly. About Time, Doctor Who and Philosophy and Sandifer's writings are popularisations targetted at a fan audience. Bondegezou (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The person who nominated the article for deletion failed to notify editors of its AfD status. I went through the edit history of both the Tat Wood article, as well as other related articles leaving messages for people who had edited there to take part in this AfD nomination, in order to get a fair, balanced consensus, rather than just 2 or 3 people. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO in particular the sources given above. Article not perfect, but the analysis of his work in secondary sources does it for me. BennyHillbilly (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2014 (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.