Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalek Lieutenant

from VfD:

Reason I recommended this article for VfD: I'd say this is obscure, esoteric fancruft, but since I have no reference to what it's really about (is it a game or something?) and the article is poorly written it just seems like patent nonsense.&mdash;ExplorerCDT 22:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash;ExplorerCDT 22:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think thatm it's a very minor character in a game or movie. Jeltz 22:24, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 * I now think that it's a tv series. Jeltz 22:30, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, all these pages need to link to Dr. Who so what they talk about is more clear.  Trust me, Dr. Who is a very real TV series and extremely popular in England.  In fact, they are right now as I type filming new episodes of this series.  Samboy 22:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) Merge in to Dalek Ranks Samboy 23:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that this one if any should be deleted. From the article I get the impression that this dalek never has done anything that makes it stand out in the series. MAybe it's just a bad article but that's the impression I get. Jeltz 22:39, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect all into the main article on Daleks. -Sean Curtin 00:17, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Delete all the elves, wizards and Harry Potter characters first and then list this. The standard has been set by the former and I don't see why we should exclude the latter. Dr Zen 01:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I would be first in line to do so for any of the above that are not notable outside of their fictional universe, but your reverse slippery slope arguement is really an arguement for deleting those articles as opposed to keeping this one. Indrian 06:34, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * So get cracking, man. Nominate an elf and I guarantee I'll vote it gone.Dr Zen 07:00, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Trim and merge and redirect to dalek. Don't wait for elves and wizards to be deleted. I'm sick of everyone pointing fingers and refusing to act until actions are taken on other matters. It's a vicious circle that leads nowhere. Similar actions can and should be taken with Tolkien, Potter, Pokemon, etc., but these listings are independent of one another. Dr. Who fans say trim the bloated Harry Potter articles, then trim this. Potter fans say the opposite. No one does anything. Enough. -R. fiend 01:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: If someone is interested in "keeping," then they can do the merging. Honestly, I don't mean that to be evil, but the merge queue is miles long on VfD.  At any rate, it's too granular and obscure a topic to need a separate article. It's also somewhat self-evident, once you know what a Dalek is.  Geogre 01:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not obscure, note that people in Britain do use the English Wikipedia, not just Americans, but it is self-evident. 132.205.15.43 03:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If the article merely said, "A Dalek Lieutenant is a Dalek who has the rank of lieutenant," then it would be self-evident. As it is, it contains a lot of facts that I hadn't known about, and I think it would be of interest to anyone looking for information on the topic. Factitious 17:29, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete,as Geogre says, if someone wants to merge let them do it before this article's five days of fame are over. --fvw *  01:52, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
 * If the information is deleted without merging, we'll be losing valuable content that should be present in our encyclopedia. This is not a reason to delete. Factitious 17:29, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * You know I was raised on Doctor Who, I love the daleks and I think that's fine, but this is stuff that would only be valuable to somebody who already knew much more about daleks than is healthy. As with most fancruft it's a minor plot detail, even the original writers have probably forgotten it and the only people who care are the most obsessive fans who have their own resources. The should be discouraged from bloating encyclopedias with their rubbish (and yes, I already voted). --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 07:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect into Dalek types or soemthing. 132.205.15.43 03:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: DCEdwards1966 04:21, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too esoteric a piece of fancruft. Indrian 06:34, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete --Carnildo 06:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge or ex-ter-min-ate. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 14:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable part of a popular and long-running TV series.  Nomination was apparently made by someone who had no idea what the article was about. Factitious 17:29, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * My recommendation is Merge to Dalek, but I see no justification or authority for Geogre's "move it or lose it" ultimatum. If it is a choice between Keep and Merge within a 'court-ordered' time limit or face deletion, then I vote Keep. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. --JuntungWu 00:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete This obscure information belongs in Dalek, if anywhere. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * redirect I have merged all such articles into Dalek Ranks The Steve  07:38, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * The article Dalek Ranks needs a rename to Dalek ranks 132.205.45.148 15:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe a merge and redirect would do the trick. I am no fan of fancruft, but if this somehow gets kept, I am going to write an article on Redshirts. Oh good grief! Never mind *rolls eyes*.--Lucky13pjn 05:05, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Daleks very are important, this particular information is not. With Dalek Ranks there is no longer a need for this individual article, if there ever was.  Gamaliel 07:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion