Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace (Doctor Who)


 * 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 speedy keep - no deletes other than nominator, and one of the articles nominated is a good article. Sceptre (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ace (Doctor Who)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The following characters have no out-of-universe notability. Most of the articles cite no sources. If they do, their only sources are primary (BBC) or are relating to viewing figures or information not related to the character directly. They therefore fail WP:V, WP:RS and especially WP:CRUFT from DW fans. There are many more of these articles that need to be deleted, but aren't listed here.

Delete then Dalejenkins | 21:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is such a ridiculous proposal it's beyond AGF and into simple vandalism. Keep, Revert, Block, Ban, Exterminate. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So how do the articles pass WP:V? Exactly. Dalejenkins | 22:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appears to be a bad faith nomination in order to prove a point. See the discussion between this nominator and the nominator of Articles_for_deletion/Serena_van_der_Woodsen. Ros0709 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally untrue. If you had READ that page, you'd see that I was against those deletions. However, I support these deletions. Dalejenkins | 22:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read that page. I see you supporting a group of articles, using the existence of similar DW articles to support their inclusion. The nominator there suggested the DW articles should similarly go and you have nominated them - in order, I suspect, to illustrate the fallacy of his argument. Ros0709 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the nom is essentially attempting to make a point involving the Gossip Girl deletions by putting this up for deletion. That's essentially the gist of WP:WAX. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 22:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:SNOWBALL Keep. Over half these articles are very well sourced. Astrid Peth is even a Good Article. Donna Noble has received considerable press coverage. I could go on... Fact is, each of these articles need to be assessed on their own, and not in a group nomination. This should be snowballed. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator may have a point about individual articles, but this scatter-gun approach is excessive and it is unreasonable to nominate and expect a considered evaluation of them all at once. Anyway, I'd say merge rather than delete. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Peri Brown, Adric, Ace (Doctor Who), Donna Noble, Susan Foreman and Jamie McCrimmon (at least these) as each were major companions on the show at one time or another (in Donna's case, she was second billed character of the last season). The ones that were in only one or two episodes (Adam Mitchell, Astrid Peth) can be merged into List of minor Doctor Who companions. Weak Keep on all I didn't mention. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 22:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.