Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of Doctor Who characters, monsters, and aliens


 * 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 -- JForget  00:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Table of Doctor Who characters, monsters, and aliens

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

Unfinished navigational list which is redundant in light of List of Doctor Who serials, which enables the reader to navigate to each episode/serial article and find out about the characters and monsters in each story. Lu Ta 04:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete because its an incomplete table of Doctor Who characters, monsters, and aliens--Lemmey talk 04:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete useful, but a separate page for organizing every show in all these different ways would be unwieldy. People can click a couple more times instead. JJL (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant, unsources and lacking most of its information. Atyndall93  |  talk  04:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see here. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --OZOO 08:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete because it is redundant with List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens Potatoswatter (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete We already have all this information, this is inappropriate. --Tefalstar (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as discrminate table. If it is incomplete, then SOFIXIT.  Consistent with Five pillars as verifiable and notable information found in a specialized encyclopedia on Doctor Who of which there are many published variations.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. And Wikipedia already has this information, organised in a similar manner.  Best, --Lu Ta 17:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then we would redirect without deletion in order to keep the contribution history public. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, this should just be deleted. There is no reason to redirect it. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Hopelessly incomplete, and wouldn't be remotely encyclopedic even if completed. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:00, 28 April 2008 (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.