Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who story title debate


 * 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   EX-TER-MIN-ATE!. The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who story title debate

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Is it just me, or is this page little more than a largely unsourced mess of minor fandom details straying into WP:OR with nothing that can't be (and as far as I'm aware is already) covered in the episodes in question's own articles? U-Mos (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. U-Mos (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. U-Mos (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention, by the way, the lack of any attempt to establish notability through sources since being tagged for this a year ago. U-Mos (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - where there is disagreement in story (episode) titles this is covered under article on story itself. There is no fandom-wide debate on the subject as this accretion of content implies (eg like the Shakespeare authorship question), nor is it a issue that affects the whole body of work. The subject is not notable independantly of the few stories where it occured, and there are no sources that treat the subject as other than a passing mention or briefly when discussing the story - hence fails GNG. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Move and Improve (weak) it's not a great article, but I think that if it were refocused away from the alleged 'debate' and 'controversey' into a straight list of stories with multiple titles, it might have some value and interest. Needs a lot of cleanup and citing though, and in absence of that I'd probably have to take my fan hat off and say delete it. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As in List of Doctor Who episodes with alternative titles? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there might be an article to be had there. On the other hand it might better left to die.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or Move/Merge As is we probably can't keep the article but there are a few things to consider. A) Its been here a long time - I know that isn't a reason to keep it but that leads to B) There are several articles that link to it because of the evolution of the serials names. C) Pixley's article that is linked to in the EL section is well researched and is used by both print and web writers to explain all that went on in the determination of how we and the Beeb refer to the serials in question today. In addition to this I just got to see the 1972 Blue Peter segment that is an extra on the Day of the Daleks DVD and Peter Purves' refers to his favourite story as being the 12 part adventure called The Devil's Planet. This was the title for episode three of the serial that we refer to today as the The Dalek Masterplan. This is a good example of why an article about the story title discrepancies is useful and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia as some viewers of that segment will come to WikiP to find out why he used a title that they haven't heard of before. If the article was improved and moved away from the "fan debate"/"controversy" aspects I think that it a different article would be helpful for those readers who aren't steeped in Dr Who lore (naturally I pity their not being properly addicted to our fave) as to the title eccentricities. Does anyone know of an article that it might be merged into so that we don't entirely lose the useful info? MarnetteD | Talk 02:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thoughts: Only 14 articles link to this one so its not a big issue to link to a different article. Pixley's article is self published (doesn't cite sources either) and not therefore an RS. If the content needs to be brought together in one place rather than as they occur in the story articles, why not start afresh as a list giving alternate titles and build it up from there. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - the few sources do not (IMHO) constitute the multiple, reliable, independent coverage that would prove notability. As GraemeLeggett has pointed out, if there is disagreement over individual titles, this is (or should be) covered in the episode's article. I won't claim this is WP:FANCRUFT, but if there's an article on an alleged mass-disagreement amongst sci-fi fans then there better be plenty of mainstream sources to back it up. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 16:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak merge. While some of this article is definitely unsourced, or perhaps original synthesis, some of it is cited descriptively, and much of the rest could be sourced from the various DVDs.  (e.g., subtitle commentary on "The Daleks" details the various title issues.)  Fact remains it's not now, of course.  But I'm not really sure it's worth having the commentary broken out from articles on individual episodes (how does that benefit the reader?), and trying to draw some kind of overall theme would definitely be OR without a source.  List of Doctor Who serials already has  alternate titles, which should be sufficient for any reader looking for either a list of such titles, or trying to find a story by an alternate title. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin This discussion was not listed at AfD; I'm listing it now, please consider the time of listing when considering when to close the discussion. Monty  845  20:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a fannish bit of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which I frankly do not see. It simply does not hold together as a single coherent subject; the various cases present divergent issues in naming, and in a couple of cases the issues seem to be completely manufactured. Individual situations could be included in appropriate articles, but in my view they do not add up to a single topic. Mangoe (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm pretty flexible for what we can accept for popular culture, but this is fan trivia beyond the range of any conceivable encyclopedia  DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 26 October 2011 (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.