Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who items


 * 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 keep. John254 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who items

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fancruft. Purely in-universe list of non-existent items with barely any secondary sources to establish notability or even interest to anyone other than a Dr Who fan. • 97198  talk  06:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I struggle to understand the nominator's reasoning, it should be deleted because it will only interest people who are interested in it? On that basis we should delete everything on Wikipedia then.  Things which don't exist outside fiction shouldn't be in an encyclopedia?  Bye bye Sherlock Holmes, Martians and the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D).  The items on this list appear in a host of books about Doctor Who, the fact they're unlikely to pop up in tomes about the Royal Navy (although there's a lot of Navy stuff in the Sea Devils) or Bach isn't really relevent.  Nick mallory (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I worded that wrong. What I meant that it shouldn't be kept per WP:INTERESTING, not that it should be deleted per the same argument. • 97198  talk  06:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. To answer your other point, here are some secondary sources discussing the things in this list.  There are literally dozens of books like these, going into Dr Who 'fancruft' in great detail.  Am I going to spend the next six hours sourcing everything in the list?  No.  Do a host of such sources clearly exist?  Certainly. Also, if we're going to delete articles which are purely 'in universe' then are you going to nominate this There's the Rub (Gilmore Girls) because all it consists of is a plot summary? Nick mallory (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Doctor Who Technical Manual by Mark Harris 	Pub by J.M. Dent ISBN 0 86770 022 X


 * The TARDIS Inside Out by John Nathan-Turner Pub by Piccadilly ISBN 0 946826 71 4


 * (Dr Who) Special Effects by Mat Irvine Pub by Beaver ISBN 0 09 942630 7


 * The Time-Travellers' Guide by Peter Haining Pub by WH Allen ISBN 0 491 03497 0


 * The Programme Guide by Jean-Marc Lofficier Pub by Target ISBN 0 426 20342 9


 * Encyclopedia of the Worlds of Doctor Who: A-D by David Saunders Pub by Piccadilly ISBN 0 946826 54 4


 * Encyclopedia of the Worlds of Doctor Who: E-K by David Saunders Pub by Piccadilly ISBN 1 85340 036 X


 * Encyclopedia of the Worlds of Doctor Who: L-R by David Saunders Pub by Piccadilly ISBN 1 85340 081 5


 * Doctor Who: A Celebration by Peter Haining Pub by Virgin ISBN 0 86369 932 4


 * Doctor Who From A to Z by Gary Gillatt Pub by BBC Books ISBN 0 563 40589 9 etc etc.


 * Strong Keep. First of all, there is some out of universe material in this article about these in-universe items. See, for example, the listing under J for A Journal of Impossible Things, which mentions the provenance of the prop and the significance of the images in it, or the listing for "Scarf" which mentions the iconic status of the Fourth Doctor's scarf and the fact that there was more than one. More out of universe material is probably needed, but that's hardly a reason to delete the whole article. Second, most of the items are referenced in the text to the primary sources, namely the episodes. Nick has listed a bunch of secondary sources that mention most of these items (especially the pre-1989 ones); although merely listing the resources doesn't constitute citation, it would not be hard, given a bit of time and effort, to apply citations to many of the things listed, if not all of them. That makes much more sense than deleting it. For people who have some interest in the show, this list is usefully encyclopedic, and much of what is in it is highly notable.  Let's establish this notability with real-world info and citations, rather than deleting it in the mistaken belief that nobody cares about the subject matter (or should). --Karen | Talk | contribs 06:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, mostly per Karen. Will (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I don't agree with everything on this list, but this is a useful page and saves lots of minor articles about these subjects. Stuart  DD  contributions 10:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, A tidy artical which in turn keeps other articals tidy.--Wiggstar69 (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as a whole passes notability and public interest (several books published on this topic). Does indeed help keep other articles tidy, per Wiggstar.  An established acceptable form of spin-out article for major fiction franchises.  Jheald (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per all of the above, this is not a fancruft list as there are several books on this subject as Nick mallory pointed out. Doc Strange (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as actually reduces fancruft; this list was created as a response to afds such as Articles for deletion/Psychic paper as a target for items which in themselves are barely notable. Tim! (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reluctant yet admited keep: It can certainly use some "in line citations" and a second look at WP:LIST... And maybe Lists (stand-alone lists)--CyclePat (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC) p.s.: Maybe even speedy keep? --CyclePat (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:CRUFT2, fancruft is neologist abuse based on intellectual snobbery which is essentially I don't like it and so insufficient reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Could probably use trimming up a little, but I really don't se any reason to delete it.Umbralcorax 17:27, 30 November 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.