Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Season 6B


 * 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. There is certainly no way this can lead to a delete outcome. There is some support for merger, but this should be taken further on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Season 6B

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Yes, I'm a Doctor Who fan, and yes, I know what this is talking about - but I'm in bafflement as to why there is an encyclopedia entry about what is ultimately one fan's theory about a minor continuity issue (and the paltry reference bears witness to that). The fan himself actually talks about it on the talk page and is amazed himself that this article exists. The whole thing is about something that isn't real and was never made - it exists only in some Doctor Who fans heads. This article may have been there a while, but maybe it's time for some of these over-zealous fans to wake up and smell the coffee? --Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment this has no indication it is anything to do with Doctor Who. "Season 6B" could refer to any TV programme's second half of season 6. 184.144.168.112 (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Although if you read the article rather than just the title, things soon become clear... ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Africa, Asia and the UN  ─╢ 10:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete due to sourcing concerns. Whether this exists "in some Doctor Who fans heads" or not is irrelevant to whether or not it deserves an article. The real problem seems to be a lack of references to establish notability under WP:GNG. The Discontinuity Guide could be considered a primary source in this case since its co-author inventend the idea. Searching online gives only one hit that could be deemed reliable, this book mention, which isn't exactly significant coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also support a merge to somewhere relevant (The War Games or The Two Doctors would seem to make the most sense). Alzarian16 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note:WikiProject Doctor Who notified Alzarian16 (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep There is certainly a great deal of OR in the article, but this is a fan theory that is talked about in the citable Discontinuity Guide source and the BBC's own website. And it is a "time-frame" in which some Who novels etc. are set. However, there is admittedly very little that isn't OR to say on the subject, and really it would need someone with the Discontinuity Guide in front of them to clear up what is citable and what isn't. U-Mos (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete because "a popular fan theory" needs way more direct, significant coverage in order to save it from being classified as something that someone made up one rainy afternoon. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Syndic General  ─╢ 10:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per U-Mos; the Discontinuity Guide is a reliable third-party source, although it is the originator of the theory, and the adoption of the theory by the writers of Players and World Game would lead it to be a little notable; if not keep, then merge into The War Games Sceptre (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Discontinuity Guide is a reliable third-party source, although it is the originator of the theory – could you run that by me again please? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  consulate  ─╢ 12:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Argh, my mind totally dropped on that. It's a third-party RS for Doctor Who things, but not third-party on its own theory. Sceptre (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * comment if it helps at all, BBC has a page on it 188.221.79.22 (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Calling this "just one fan's theory" is an unfair assessment. As the article mentions, there are two tie-in books set in this hypothetical period, written by one of the script writers for the TV show itself. There are other examples on tardis.wikia that show that it has been adopted and used by multiple authors for different media, including not only the two books, but comics, short stories and an audio book.  Regardless of whether this may "only exist in some fans heads", I'd argue that this is a significant and notable example of fanon. fraggle (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge to an appropriate place - Doctor Who coverage on the project is huge, the theory sounds notable enough that its existence should be mentioned somewhere, whereever best makes sense among the slew of these articles.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge somewhere The sources currently used are nice enough, but I'm not sure they provide enough coverage to warrants a whole articl. I'm at a bafflement to where it can be redirected/merged to, though. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 June 2011 (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.