Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who historical characters


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  22:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who historical characters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has no sources cited. It is fancruft and listcruft of the worse kind. Take it to a Dr Who wiki if wanted, but it's not encyclopaedic. Bondegezou (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Like stated, this article is just completely unsourced fancruft.  I'm not finding any sources that back up why the idea of "historical characters" appearing on one specific show about time travel is particularly notable as a group.  Additionally, the article itself is not especially great, as its title claims its about historical figures, and then goes on to include a huge amount of completely fictional characters.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment (warning extremely tongue-in-cheek), above editors obviously Star Trek fans. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The list cites the episodes in which these historical figures were dramatized, and those episodes are reliable for their own content. So while it would be correct to note there are no secondary sources, it is not correct to say there are "no" sources. This is a persistent point of confusion among editors when dealing with articles about cultural works. postdlf (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, you are right that MOS:FICT does allow the use of the work itself to act as a source for basic information about the work. I was using a shorthand to refer to reliable, independent, secondary sources, which is what is needed to satisfy notability criteria. I also note that this article fails MOS:FICT in almost every other way. 18:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondegezou (talk • contribs)
 * "No sources" is not a clear or appropriate shorthand to use for "no sources supporting notability", because it instead suggests you're claiming unverifiability. Keep also in mind WP:BEFORE; the present lack of sources in an article is not relevant to deletion, rather what matters is if no sources can be found. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The use of historical characters in Doctor Who was one of the original points of the show, and has received substantial attention in reliable sources, including books about the show (e.g. )and other media (e.g. ). Even if there is some debate about the extent of RS coverage of this subject, I'd view this article as a valid spinoff in the overall structure of Doctor Who coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The use of historical characters in Doctor Who is certainly an important part of the show and its own history. That Doctor Who did this is something that should be and is described in the Doctor Who article, with some pertinent examples. That's where your first two references come in. However, that's not a reason for an unreferenced, WP:INUNIVERSE-style list here that makes no distinction between the very different uses, from an WP:OUTUNIVERSE perspective, of historical characters in the William Hartnell era with Barack Obama appearing in The End of Time or Nefertiti in "Dinosaurs on a Spaceship". Your third reference fails RS (not independent), so only your fourth reference directly speaks to an article like this, and it's not the job of an encyclopaedia to replicate a lazy listicle clickbait article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unencyclopedic trivia. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2016 (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.