Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time vortex (Doctor Who)


 * 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. Normally, I'd find some way to invoke WP:ATD and call this a merge, but there's cogent arguments here why we can't do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Time vortex (Doctor Who)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be entirely fictional technobabble-cruft that fails WP:GNG. The only major mentions of it are in primary, in-universe sources such as books written for/about the show.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I find it hard to believe this isn't covered in some reliable sources somewhere. I seem to remember it was an important element of the show. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep it is an in-universe thing. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 22:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * In universe is usually a delete argument isn't it? Szzuk (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. The page has no references which is usually a delete from me but given that Doctor Who is so well covered it probably could be referenced so I will hold my vote for now. Szzuk (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Really this needs the attention of someone who knows Dr Who sources, since looking for such stuff on the web is like looking for a grain of sand on a beach. Prince of Thieves (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete for lacking any outside sources that support the subject's independent notability. It's not enough that we have an article dedicated to TARDIS, we now must have an article about what the machine does? Whatever text there is of interest should be added to the TARDIS article and that should be all. -The Gnome (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a spinoff of the TARDIS article, it's a sort of space time thing that is regularly featured in episodes and is also the title sequence. The TARDIS, and most other Dr Who thingies travel in and out of it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge. To Tardis, no refs but has a place there. Szzuk (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We cannot explicitly recommend that a piece of text is added to a Wikipedia article without any references to outside sources. As far as I know, it is forbidden. -The Gnome (talk)


 * Comment I would like to argue to keep, but on balance think that there is not enough notability to justify a standalone article. However there is useful material here which could be merged (although there is some more trivial and non-notable content that could go). The question is where? My concern about merging with TARDIS is that the Vortex is not just related to the TARDIS - other time travel devices in Doctor Who travel through it as well, such the devices used by Captain Jack and River Song. If the spin-off fiction is included there are also a number of stories which feature races that live in the Time Vortex. However I am not sure where else it could go. It is pity that there is not a Time Travel in Doctor Who article or Scientific Concepts in Doctor Who article that could cover this and also the Blinovitch Limitation Effect. Dunarc (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The material might indeed be useful (I'm not qualified to pass judgement on this) but where are the sources supporting it? As we all know, Wikipedia is not a publication of essays. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You make a fair point and I totally agree about the essays point - it is one of the reasons I think this could be covered in briefer format in another article rather than kept, although as I say if this is decided as the way to go I do not think the TARDIS article is the best place. The lack of references is an issue (and I meant to note that in my previous comment so thanks for flagging up), but I think that could be overcome as there should be reliable sources out there for some of the points. Dunarc (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Plotcruft, see WP:NOTPLOT. No apparent notability because of no sources. Do not merge unsourced content.  Sandstein   17:22, 27 March 2018 (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.