Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (Doctor Who)


 * 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   no consensus. –MuZemike 01:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Earth (Doctor Who)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Zythe said it well in the initial prod notice, "This is fancruft with zero value to Wikipedia. Doctor Who Wiki covers this sort of thing very well, for editors (like myself!) who enjoy reading them but, regrettably, know they don't belong on Wikipedia." Per the discussion at the Doctor Who Wikiproject talk page, there is no consensus to create this article (or the related article on the Moon) without strong out-of-universe content, rather than just plot details. Ckatz chat spy  03:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP- This is a typical type of article to see on Wikipedia, I see no problem. -- Rockstone  talk to me!   04:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep In my opinion, this is suitable for Wikipedia.Acather96 (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge or redirect to the list article List of Doctor Who planets. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- my first instinct was to trash it, but since it's mostly a list article tying together various episode articles, there's no reason to delete it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not really a list article, and it would only serve to attract fancruft. More importantly, there was no consensus at the Doctor Who project page to create this article without a demonstration of real-world sources to add encyclopedic content, yet the creator went ahead and did it anyway. The information in the article can easily be summarized in the existing entry at List of Doctor Who planets. --Ckatz chat spy  20:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- Unsourced fancruft consisting of nothing but in-universe plot summary and really pointless WP:TRIVIA. Reyk  YO!  01:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This unsourced attempt at a timeline of the Earth's history, pasted together from various Doctor Who serials, only pretends coherence where there ultimately isn't any.  Canon isn't exactly Doctor Who's strong suit, particularly given the 40 odd years of serials by different authors...  And the science fiction element of Doctor Who gives its fiction the ability to be "wrong."  I'd wager that the 400 million BCE date for the start of life in City of Death, for example, is not elsewhere repeated in another Doctor Who serial; the WP article even notes that the show's producer called that a blunder.  At any rate, this is at best a content fork from Chronology of the Doctor Who universe, which by contrast has sources, is substantively written, and actually comments on contradictions within the show and between writers.  So even assuming at best that this is a valid enterprise, I see no cause for splitting that chronology by location and no separate content in this that justifies its existence.  A list of Doctor Who serials set on Earth (ordered by broadcast date) may accomplish the same goal as this, only much more capably.  postdlf (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:N and WP:PLOT, the notability of any single fictional work's conception of the planet Earth is not sufficient enough for an independent article. Imagine the following similar cases: London (Charles Dickens), New York (Ayn Rand) and St. Petersberg (Dostoevsky)..... Claritas § 20:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't have to imagine the first of these - the topic is so notable and well documented that the article fairly begged to be written. I leave the other two cases as an exercise for others. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where exactly in WP:N and WP:PLOT do you think it states what you assert? It's one thing to determine that this article fails; it's another to somehow pull an absolute out of the air that it is impossible for a kind of topic to be notable.  You're also equivocating "any single fictional work's conception" of a topic with the conception of a topic across multiple fictional works.  Doctor Who is a media franchise, comprising 40+ years of TV serials and novels, each of which is a separate work of fiction written by multiple writers.  Each novel by Ayn Rand or Dickens would also be a separate work of fiction, obviously.  I think it's quite possible for a valid article to be written on Dickens' depiction of London in his many works of fiction, for example.  And even if we were talking about just one work of fiction, it's still possible for multiple articles about it to be written.  See the articles in Category:Hamlet, for example.  Such a sweeping, conclusory statement as you have made, apart from being completely unsupported by any policy or guideline, just suggests that your !vote is ideologically motivated rather than based on an evaluation of this particular article and subject.  postdlf (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is evidently notable. I have added another citation and made a start on improving the article in accordance with our editing policy.  Colonel Warden (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I just discovered Earth in fiction, which looks kind of like it was assembled out of a hodgepodge of attempts at articles like this one.  No opinion on its merits, but it's there for now at least as a potential merge target, in addition to Chronology of Doctor Who and List of Doctor Who planets.  postdlf (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2010 (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.