Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who TARDIS travellers


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 05:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who TARDIS travellers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article essentially lists every character who has set foot inside the title character's time ship over the forty-plus-year history of the series. If this isn't fancruft, I'd like to see what is. I see very little of encyclopedic value in this list, and yet the original poster insists on including it in the overall series template. So I throw it to the birds. What say ye, birds? Aderack 04:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Smacks of a great deal of WP:OR. Resolute 05:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. A list that doesn't illustrate anything, and isn't useful for navigation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of significant coverage for "Doctor Who TARDIS travellers" Most of these "doctors" also need to be deleted because they're lacking "significant coverage" from independent real world sources Corpx 06:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ...you...can't mean the Doctors, the protagonists of Doctor Who, can you? It'd be like deleting Luke Skywalker. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant the companions of these doctors Corpx 06:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be like deleting Chewbacca or C-3PO. Which, for all I know, you'd advocate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Its all about significant coverage from independent sources. Btw, Chewbacca has plenty of "significant coverage"  Corpx 15:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So do Rose Tyler and Sarah Jane Smith and Jack Harkness and Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart, even when you eliminate real people who happen to share their names. And that's just using Google News, which is not the only tool for finding reliable, independent sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which one of those hits give "significant coverage" to Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart? Corpx
 * This one, this one, this one, this one... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I opened up the factiva.com links and the first had a 1 line mention of this character - "The three special guests come in the shape of Nicholas Courtney, better known as Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart; Steve Emerson".   How exactly is this significant coverage?   The same for the second factiva link - "Veteran support player Nicholas Courtney has appeared alongside every Doctor, [except Colin Baker's], in the role of Brigadier Alistair Lethbridge-Stewart, a traditional stiff British military man who "never encountered an alien that he didn't attempt to shoot or blow up".".   Again, how is this significant coverage ? Corpx 21:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Doctor Who companions says the good Brigadier is a "disputed companion" who only hopped in the TARDIS once. I think that article says all that needs to be said about his TARDIS travelling. This list appears to be redundant fancruft. Canuckle 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Corpx and I aren't even arguing about this article, which we both agree should be deleted. We're arguing because of his snide comment that these major Doctor Who characters shouldn't even have pages of their own. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Somebody helped me out on the LexisNexis article and its also here for viewing.  The Brigadier is mentioned twice and I dont think that gives significant coverage either.   Corpx 22:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with List of Doctor Who TARDIS travellers? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That this is potentially a list of characters with no notability established? Corpx 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't realize that every item on a list had to have notability established. Oh, wait — it doesn't.  I just hope that if you decide to put Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart up for AfD you have the courtesy to inform the Doctor Who WikiProject, so they can take the time and trouble to add all that "significant coverage" to the article.  The coverage isn't in the article yet, but it's out there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Needs improvement though, like formatting and sources (and yes they exist). This list is a usefull reference within the Doctor Who universe, and it the only way to display the corrolations between all the main characters throughout the show's 30(!) year history. Defenitely not fancruft! --Edokter (Talk) 09:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/mergeAfter some more thought, it is probably best to integrate any information that is not already covered in Doctor Who companions into that article. --Edokter (Talk) 14:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this artical could be good, but it needs some changes, for example we already have a list of companions artical, so the 'companion' part of the artical and the 'others' part of the artical should be merged (I'll do this now). Other then that we'll need sources on some of the things written in the artical -but that shouldn't be too hard. I wouldn't delete the artical now before its had a chance to improve, i'd wait until after the changes. Wiggstar69 10:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Much of this list is largely redundant. That the various Doctors and companions travel in the TARDIS is well covered elsewhere, and we already have articles that detail all of these: Doctor (Doctor Who) & Doctor Who companions. Listing the remaining characters is fancruft — who else, apart from a fanatical completist, would want all these mainly one-off TARDIS journeys listed? This is surely not notable. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 10:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've simplified the artical, its no longer in three parts and now in only one which 'I feel' has improved it, before when you looked at the first two parts (Doctors & Companions) you could have got the information from other places on wikipedia, meaning it was pointless having it on it own.--Wiggstar69 10:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete — the encyclopedic content of this is redundant with Companion (Doctor Who), and (as Mark points out) the one-off travelers really don't merit a list of their own. I'm probably one of the most obsessive Doctor Who fans on Wikipedia, and even I think this unnecessary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As an uber-fan, I actually found this kind of interesting; still, I have to admit it's not particularly encyclopedic on its own. The info on the one-off travellers is available in the articles for the episode in question, and I don't really see the notability in having them collected in one list. Readers may look for robots, or monsters, or companions in Doctor Who; I'm not sure they'd be looking for minor characters who took one trip in the TARDIS. --Brian Olsen 20:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge - This particular article isn't very encyclopedic, but some of the information could be listed on the TARDIS page (if it isn't already). But if the information is duplicated in other articles, I don't see why this one should stay. Editmaniac 22:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Although I kind of liked this artical the others above have swayed me, I hate to just jump on the bandwagon but it hasn't really got a place in wikipedia (shame). Wiggstar69 22:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Redundant. DonQuixote 00:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant -- duplicates the companions article. And virtually all of the names that would be added (beyond the companions and other notable co-stars of the series) would be un-notable characters who wouldn't warrant a separate article beyond a mention in the applicate episode or story arc article. For the record, however, I vehemently oppose Corpx's assertion that articles based upon notable co-stars and even lead characters from Doctor Who should be deleted. 23skidoo 01:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nice idea but rather pointless.(Black Dalek 12:18, 1 August 2007 (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.