Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who (revived series)


 * 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 Delete per G7 - author has blanked the article. Talk Islander 01:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who (revived series)

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

unnecessary fork from main featured article Doctor Who and completely without discussion, let alone consensus. WP:SNOW should apply to this maverick creation. Rodhull andemu  23:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Being the nominator, I have resisted closing this Afd, as a breach of responsibility; but the creator of the page has now blanked it, and I have deleted it as CSD, and not for the first time today. Whether its author intended that, I cannot tell, because no edit summary was left. However, doing so has consequences, and they have followed. Should any other Admin think there is merit in developing this article, it can always be copied into the editor's userspace to be worked on. Meanwhile, this has been a sorry experience for all concerned, and the article's creator should not take it to heart. -- Rodhull andemu  01:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: This article is to make it easier for people looking for the revived series easier to find; and easier to find the information they need. And when it is FINISHED it will provide this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pic Editor960 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)  — Pic Editor960 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep:The new Doctor Who series differs in many ways from the previous run and can be considered separate in many ways, and will make it easier to find this information. NoVomit (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as redundant with main Doctor Who article and unlikely search term. Rklear (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete It's all covered in Doctor Who. flaminglawyerc 23:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - redundant to Doctor Who, a featured article. This fork from a featured article was created without discussion, let alone consensus (consensus to fork would never have been gained in this case). Moreover, the creator was made well aware that discussion should occur before forking. No need to dilute a featured article into two articles. Talk Islander 23:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This article was made to help people looking for the revived series get the information they need easier than the main page (LOTS of information; not just on revived) it is not finished yet either when it is you will see this. Pic Editor960 (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "(LOTS of information; not just on revived)" - you what? You mean that this article entitled 'Doctor Who (revived series) will include lots of information on Doctor Who, but not just the revived series? You mean like how Doctor Who contains lots of information on Doctor Who, but not just the classic series? Your argument's flawed. That aside, you still haven't explained why you're bulldozing ahead without much needed discussion. Talk Islander 23:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean there is lots of information on the main page and its hard to find things on the revived series as it is slipped in here and there. This article is ONLY on the revived series. Pic Editor960 (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete (MULTIPLE EC's) Let's not devalue an FA with a fork like this. ThuranX (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - This article is better than having the main article and the new revival series together. It seems to have more information than the main article; or atleast seems that it will provide it. 86.161.254.105 (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC) — 86.161.254.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete per nom. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't believe this article should be up for deletion yet, wait and see what information it will provide when it is done, you are deleting before you see its potential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pic Editor960 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Also you should try to see the potential of this article as it will create a faster way of people finding what they need on it or even just to see whats going on with the current series not just the classic. Pic Editor960 (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom. No reason to create a fork, especially to create such a lightweight article. Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment fine delete :@ i just want you to no i tried to make this article so it was easier for you guys to get info, but no-one seems to care. Wasted two hours of my life for fuckin nothinPic Editor960 (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." is displayed at the bottom of every editing page. It's not our fault if you didn't notice that. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; "current" information has no more significance over older info. Surely, if there is going to be a revived series article, there should be a classic series article as well? Therefore, what is the purpose of the main series article? Such a system will likely result in our having duplicate, redundant information, and it is confusing to not have a main article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - I love the revived series of doctor who; and this article has provided an easier way for me to get information on it. PugLoveruu (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC) — PugLoveruu (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Strong Keep - I completely agree with the comment above mine, this is an easier way for me to get information —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSI"66666 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)   — CSI"66666 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - Better than having the main article all as one splitting the revived series out was a good idea. 86.161.254.105 (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Duplicate vote stricken.


 * Delete There's no reason to keep this article, as the information within it can be kept in the main article. Bad fork and abysmal behavior by obvious socks wanting to keep this. They can stop anytime now, please.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep- Great Article - well done on creating it. Celebrations000 (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC) — Celebrations000 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment per User:Mrschimpf, any further disruption by single-edit accounts to this discussion will result in sanctions being imposed. -- Rodhull andemu  00:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I like the idea of a separate article to view easier way for info. 86.161.254.105 (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC) third !vote by blocked sockpuppet SPA stricken.
 * Note - I have struck out all blatent single-purpose accounts (SPA) up to this point in the discussion, i.e. those with only one edit to this page. It's fairly clear that the creator of this article isn't familiar with WP:SOCK, along with a load of other policies. Talk Islander 00:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unnecessary fork Sceptre (talk) 00:57, 28 December 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.