Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartmel Masterplan


 * 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. BD2412 T 04:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Cartmel Masterplan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is pure WP:FANCRUFT; this is Wikipedia, not The Doctor Who Wiki. Pahiy (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Decently sourced article. Dimadick (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This is an important part of the real-world behind-the-scenes story of the last few seasons of Doctor Who. The article has multiple references to reliable secondary sources, including Script Doctor (the autobiography of Andrew Cartmel, the script editor of Doctor Who), AHistory and many issues of Doctor Who Magazine. I also know there's coverage of the topic in other books, including Tat Wood's About Time 6: The Unauthorized Guide to Doctor Who and Bookwyrm: An Unauthorized & Unconventional Guide to the Doctor Who Novels. These non-fiction, real-world sources are aimed at an audience of Doctor Who enthusiasts, but that's what literary & media criticism looks like when you're discussing the behind-the-scenes story of a modern television show. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This is very much FANDOM material and is even called "fan terminology" on the official Dr. Who wiki. Transwiki any relevant references to the article on FANDOM and delete as undue weight, indiscriminate fancruft sourced entirely to WP:PRIMARY sources.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect to History of Doctor Who. The problem as a stand-alone article is that it focuses too much on plot and that "the proposed revelations never materialised on screen". It can be a nice background detail for the 1989->2005 development of the show though. – sgeureka t•c 15:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect per the above. It makes more sense that all history of the show is gathered in one place. Even should that article become too long, splitting it by decade would be more sensible than little chunks like this floating about. TTN (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems well referenced. Needs some rewriting for style and encylopedicness but meets the notability criteria IMO. Amisom (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - referenced and sourced. Also potentially relevant with the new season. Web Warlock (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2020 (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.