Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who supporting 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who supporting characters

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Simply a list of characters, often establishing notability in an unverifiable way (such as "significant humans") - I can see no point in this article. U-Mos (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As evidenced from the article in question, supporting cast has been subject of coverage in reliable sources many times. If there are entries on it that are of unclear notability, they can be addressed by editing (see WP:BEFORE). But "no point" is not a valid reason for deletion, nor are any concerns that can be fixed by editing instead of deletion. As such, the nominator fails to make a policy-backed argument in favor of deletion. Regards  So Why  09:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "no point" was a poor choice of wording, but to be quite frank I see nothing in this article that either shouldn't be there or isn't elsewhere. The companions section links to the Companion (Doctor Who) article, which is more comprehensive. There is a List of UNIT personnel article. Other recurring and significant humans I don't believe is notable, and I feel should be removed in any case. There is a list of Time Lords at Time Lord. There is a Creatures and aliens in Doctor Who article. Ditto List of Doctor Who villains. The "Recurring or significant alien species, monsters or robots" section links to Category:Doctor Who races and Creatures and aliens in Doctor Who. The final section links to List of companions in Doctor Who spin-offs. In short, there is nothing in this article that isn't elsewhere. U-Mos (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:AOAL #14 for a discussion of notability in lists. Jclemens (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Almost everyone on this page has an article anyway, and most of the groups (UNIT, companions, Villains, aliens, robots, spin-off companions) have seperate lists for those people. It also has people under "recurring" lists who have only featured once.  Don't see that it is needed. 86.131.237.120 (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is it synthesis? Is there a definition of "supporting character"? Has any reliable source collected these different groups together? Peter jackson (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep sensible list topic with well defined inclusion criteria, and backed by other sources too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per  So Why . From a practical standpoint, an easy way to find a character you are looking for. Hektor (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  13:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's a list of supporting characters in a popular TV series. Joe Chill (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but consider converting to a sortable-table. This is a type of higher-level navigation article as many of the names have their own articles or sections of other articles; the notability aspect is not a factor here. That said, the list as presented is not helpful unless you know the work directly. My suggestion is that if this was made into a table, listing role, aspect of role (eg companions, UNIT, villian, etc.) actor (maybe some handwaving for recurring characters by different actors), the incarnation of the Doctor, the story/media name, and year, this would help someone who is looking for something to find that character and jump to it. But otherwise, I don't believe the notability aspect is appropriate here as this is a navigation article. --M ASEM  (t) 13:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea. If kept (which seems likely at the moment), I'd support changing the article in this way. U-Mos (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep this is a nice condensed list, into which some of the less notable entries should possibly be merged. Major fictonal franchise, not excessively in-universe, has at least some citations... what exactly is the problem here? Jclemens (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's an appropriate list that does not violate any guidelines. Don't see a problem here. Not all elements of a list need to be notable, per WP:APOL, and some certainly are (e.g., Daleks) so that comment in the nom is irrelevant.  Rlendog (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Many readers might need the page to find about Doctor Who characters. DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - While I'm usually fundamentally opposed to list articles given the cultural/cult significance of the show and the wealth of information on these characters it's a keep! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reason for this article, it is simply a poorly written confused repitition of information that exists in other articles. Some of the information is decidedly dodgy.  The list of "recurring" characters contains characters that appeared in one story!  Paul75 (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And contrariwise omits some who did appear in more than one. Peter jackson (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So your argument for deletion is that the article isn't finished yet. Please point to where Editing policy and Deletion policy support such arguments. Uncle G (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep looks like a good list to me, well sourced and linked up. Notable topic matter.  Can't think of a reason to delete.  The purpose of a list is to have in once place information that exists in other articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A necessary list considering the sheer scope of it, as it would be too much for a prent article. Needs a little cleanup with regard to precise heading titles, but otherwise good, and easily verifiable. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  18:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as all the articles contained within seem to be individually notable. If they weren't, it would be a different story.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:58, 26 July 2009 (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.