Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who (2022 specials)


 * 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. There's convincing arguments that this topic is distinct from the preceding season of Dr. Who. I would have liked to see more evidence of substantive content, but in the absence of arguments as to why a separate stub is worse than an out-of-place section, I can't close this any other way. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Doctor Who (2022 specials)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unnecessary spin-off from Doctor Who (series 13). Two of the three specials under this article's purview are part of series 13's production period, so belong naturally in its article per precedent of Doctor Who (series 11) and Doctor Who (series 12), with current sources indicating only a short break before the third is filmed too. Resulting article says nothing distinct from Doctor Who (series 13) - if there comes a point where distinct sources for the three specials become abundant, a separate article could be revisited, but there's no knowing if that point will come at this premature moment. A separate specials article existing now runs the risk of Wikipedia leading rather than following external sources. U-Mos (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The correct precedent here is Doctor_Who_(2008–2010_specials); these also came at the end of a particular Doctor's incarnation, and formed a brief set of episodes bridging from one incarnation to the next, with the last of these episodes finishing with a regeneration scene. The BBC has indicated that this is what's going to happen in this case too. This is a clear Keep. RomanSpa (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Narrative similarities notwithstanding, those specials were always discussed, promoted and considered as existing in lieu of a full series in 2009 (and with one exception, were produced separately from the preceding series) - on this occasion we have two of three specials that were literally announced as part of series 13. So I dispute the equivalence is that exact. U-Mos (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Found this source as well which says "Doctor Who Series 13 and 2022 specials" which further separates the series itself from the specials. The Doctor Who  (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong and clear keep Why was this not simply discussed on the talk page first? An unfortunate sign of a lack of collaborative effort. As mentioned, Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials) and Doctor Who (2013 specials) act as precedence for this article, the specials in the former article even using production codes directly from its preceeding series. This article details the three specials that are served outside of Series 13. The episodes are not at all a part of Series 13. These external sources you mention all reliably confirm three specials outside of the series, which is described as a "six-episode serial"; these specials do not make up those six episodes. -- / Alex /21  23:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: This Radio Times source states "Both star and showrunner will bow out following a six-part series (set to air later in 2021), two specials (already planned for 2022), plus one final feature-length adventure for the Thirteenth Doctor which will also mark the BBC’s centenary next year." which clearly separates the series from the specials confirming what Alex said above. This differs from say the twelfth series special where Chibnall says " You will get a special – at the end of the series, yes" which attaches it to the preceding series itself. It probably wouldn't hurt to slightly trim the thirteenth series of information around the specials themselves just to get the distinction that the nominator mentioned.  The Doctor Who  (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Doctor Who (series 13) - the specials can be briefly mentioned in a section there, but there isn't enough information out there to justify a separate article at present.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, there are reliable sources (,, , are all centered around the "trio of specials") that address the specials themselves (casting information, crew information, filming information, broadcast information) and all of that is in the article which beyond meets the minimum requirements of WP:NTV.  The Doctor Who  (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are all either press releases or regurgitations of press releases; that's not significant independent coverage. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia says that independent sources "have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication) which the first two clearly meet. If two aren't enough for you here's a third and most of the sources in that article are independent according to that definition. The second two are press releases, or primary sources, which I don't see being an issue since independent sources are used along side them. The Doctor Who  (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with the above; the article completely meets the requirements of NTV, in which the subject of the article has already begun filming. -- / Alex /21  20:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can so both sides of this debate, but I think there might also be a further issue to consider. The final special (which is to tie in with BBC centenary), does not at this stage seem to have been part of the same production block as the other two, which were made with series 13. Without knowing the content it might be the case that the first two specials are much more closely connected with season 13 (and better placed in its article) and the third is more of a stand alone effort which would not fit into the series 13 article. Also at this stage we do not know what is happening in 2023 and beyond. It is possible that there could be more specials (eg for the 60th anniversary) before any further series is broadcast. Thus it might be that there is eventually a need for an article covering multiple specials after series 13. Thus I think if this is deleted then there needs to be the option to restore in the future. For what its worth, my own feeling would be leave for now (as there is clearly some coverage of 2022 specials at the moment) and then revisit in the future if it becomes clear that season 13 is the best place for all three specials. Dunarc (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect Seems too early to spin this out so all the material on forthcoming productions are better in a single location where reader can find everything together. This can clearly be undone later if there is sufficient material to spin out a further article. Spartaz Humbug! 19:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to note as the nominator I'd be happy with a redirect to Doctor Who (series 13) as an alternative. U-Mos (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite the content not relating to Series 13, as proven above? -- / Alex /21  22:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made my position clear, as have you; let's respect the AfD process. U-Mos (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why you didn't start this as a discussion on the article's talk page first? -- / Alex /21  23:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement to do so - a formal nomination gives a better chance for thorough discussion and a conclusive result. U-Mos (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Very disappointing. Thank you for your response. -- / Alex /21  23:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely noteworthy and relevant according to Wikipedia's noteability guidelines. --Chris VDR (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as there is a precedent for this type of split.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2021 (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.