Talk:Doctor Who TARDISposting

Deletion

I agree with the deletion tag. Unless some sources can be found explaining "TARDISposting"'s relevance, I will delete it. Bongo50 ☎ 11:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Scongo is, I believe, the relevance. Najawin ☎ 20:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The relevance is, in fact, heavily understated on the page. The original Scongo image was featured in a Rings of Akhaten card made by one Andy Hauser for the express purpose of creating more standalone Scongo cards for the Worlds Apart NFT game. Andy is a former designer for Reality+, the developer of Worlds Apart.

Besides any of that, the group was deleted years ago due to mass reporting from trolls, as stated in the description, so unfortunately the sources for the many major actors in Doctor Who supporting the group have since been lost to time. Needless to say, that area of the page can and should be removed.

I feel, though, that we are focusing on entirely the wrong thing here. Forum Gallifrey Base has zero sources cited, and the immensely influential Rec.arts.drwho has only one singular source cited. If we truly want to live up to the standards we are setting on the TARDISposting group, we must be willing to put in the work to cite sources on those pages as well. Though, at present, no one has felt the need to address the lack of sources for those two examples. Only TARDISposting.

This isn't even getting into the fact that, from my observation, TARDISposting is among the top five Facebook Doctor Who groups with the most members. They have a little under half the userbase of Gallifrey Base, and this current group has only been around for nearly four years. Gallifrey Base, in contrast, has been around for a decade and a half. Nearly fifteen years, vs. not even four years, and it's already coming close to half the users. This illustrates the point of TARDISposting's massive reach in the fandom space, which I believe shows its relevance perfectly.

I see no issue with this page remaining up. However, to delete it would be tantamount to erasing the massive contributions the group has made in fandom. Popularizing the "Don't forget to subscribe to the official Doctor Who YouTube channel" meme, which has carried over from Capaldi to every other Doctor since, is one such example, but by no means is it a fluke.

Please keep this page up. If anything, expand it. LilPotato ☎

You make valid points, those other articles should be expanded too, and I would assume there ought to be some coverage on the group's link to Worlds Apart. However, if we are to determine reach in fandom by membership count, then this possibly opens the door to other groups. Take reddit's /r/gallifrey community, which has more than thrice the membership of TARDISposting, and /r/doctorwho which has more than six times the membership of /r/gallifrey. These two communities are no doubt influential in fandom, but I bring them up because I recall them specifically being discussed with the outcome not to have articles due to the criteria for fan websites, as there is simply a lack of coverage in reliable sources. There's of course more complicated cases, like fan groups that lack any kind of "membership" number (the /who/ general and its satirical wiki and forums is something that is also quite influential in fandom spaces but is most certainly not talked about much due to its controversial nature to say the least).

Arguably, this seems more or less a case of TARDISposting being more accessible, with its home on one of the biggest social media sites in the world, and therefore easily found by new fans compared to sites like Gallifrey Base.

Crediting TARDISposting with "popularising memes" is also an issue, as that is a subjective statement and is pretty much impossible to prove. Even if it were provable, it's probably trivial.

Ideally, if this article is to be expanded, we'll need good sources outside the fan group itself, and the current criteria as it stands is a bit of an obstacle to that. This would probably require a forum debate on relaxing the criteria. 85.255.236.193^{talk to me} 12:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is Scongo actually in Worlds Apart, or is that just a plan? If the latter, surely this whole discussion, not to mention the page, is in violation of T:SPOIL… --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 12:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

(I agree with the idea that a forum discussion is probably necessary. There's some old discussions suggesting that the standard has to be quite strict.) Najawin ☎ 15:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)