Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Edokter (talk | contribs) at 14:57, 6 July 2008 (→Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special

Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been moved to 2008 Christmas special (Doctor Who). — Edokter • Talk • 14:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it should stay because we all know its going to happen. Goku1st (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2008 (GMT)
  • Yeah, just like we know the year 2347 is going to happen. Srsly, how do we know it's going to happen? Have you been looking into your WP:CRYSTAL ball? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If for some reason it didn't happen ,that very fact would fact it notable ,eg The Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special was never broadcast due to .....' Gnevin (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think, as with other articles which had few information (like future Bond movies), it has always been common policy to allow temporary articles with few information so they can be linked to, expanded once information arises and allow people to easily gather the information already available. In this case, we have a couple of major points already, even if the only source is a 15-seconds trailer: We know the main character (the Doctor), we have two notable guest stars, we know a approximate air date and a major plot point. -- SoWhy Talk 22:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*The only source is a trailer that not a lot of people have seen. Those of us who haven't seen the trailer can't find a thing about this film. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Film? Are you familiar with this subject matter, Hammer? Tphi (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently not, or he'd realise that between 8 and 10 million Britons saw the trailer at the end of the last episode of Doctor Who. (Ratings pending, based on preliminary estimates.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not need to be available to everyone. It can be verified easily by asking a UK based editor to view the trailer. WP:CRYSTAL is not the case as this is indeed confirmed. WP:V does not say that the source has to be easily accessible by everyone, else old books for example couldn't be used as sources. -- SoWhy Talk 22:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Articles for episodes and movies yet to air are perfectly acceptable. WP:CRYSTAL just says that unsourced and unconfirmed things should not be added - this is neither. -- SoWhy Talk 22:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL says that it's okay to have future events providing there is significant coverage by secondary sources. Elections are a good example. A trailer is not a sufficiently reliable/verifiable/source, and in the absence of further coverage, I suggest this is recreated nearer the time. Fails WP:CRYSTAL for that reason. -- PeterSymonds (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you can have an article called "Bond 22" for a year, then I see no harm in this. Also, its confirmed that the episode will happen! I mean, come on! It's already been filmed and was advertised at the end of the series 4 finale... All Grown Up! Defender 23:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, since thats a strong source, I've added it to the article. Nice work finding it! All Grown Up! Defender 23:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "Bond 22"/Quantum of Solace article might have been created long before the film's release, but there must surely have been adequate sources of information to justify its presence on Wikipedia, albeit unnamed and with some details yet to be confirmed. As a feature-length motion picture, it is bound to have a lot more coverage. What we're dealing with right here, right now is a single episode of a TV series, currently without a solid, known title, whose article contains barely any information (furthermore, most of what is there at the moment is either repetitive or unsourced speculation). It also seems dubious to rely on a source such as the tabloid Daily Mail, which is normally not be trusted too faithfully. Yes, we know that there will be a Christmas special, and that it will feature the Cybermen, but does this article really have to be made so soon? I say wait for future news from reliable sources (BBC, DWM etc.) before acting too rashly. -- SuperMarioMan (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the episode has been filmed and will air so if we delete it now we’re just going to have to recreate it later. Information is slowly beginning to emerge and we need somewhere to put this information as it does. Also it’s useful to have a place for other articles to link to for this. -- Mutt (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least provisionally. The trailer is as reliable a source as we can have that the episode will air, the Crystal Ball rule clearly allows articles about things that will happen within the forseeable future, and we know some things about it: not many, perhaps, but enough to enough to make the article worthwhile. The article can always be replaced when we know more. -- And Introducing... A Leg (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the episode is known to exist and has been advertised (via the trailer), and has received coverage in an additional source as described above. -- DavidK93 (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Episode is known to exist, article is not a perma-stub. I'm sure you can find two independent sources for it. In a case like this where it's something we will obviously have an article on and there is no doubt that it is going to happen we may as well keep the article and let it develop. -- Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:CRYSTAL. As with other Doctor Who episodes, this would be considered notable (Dragons Flight has provided secondary coverage in addition). The only question is whether the show will take place. Just as presumably we'll see the 2016 elections, I think that we'll also end up seeing this in Christmas 2008. -- Fraud talk to me 03:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - multiple verifiable sources, main production is complete and post-production is under way. Some feature films will get a smaller audience than this special can expect; we will have eyes on this article. -- Radagast (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't even remotely meet the guidelines for speedy deletion. There has been a trailer and there is information available through other sources. The title isn't available yet, but there needs to be an article on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leilaht (talk • contribs) 04:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Virtually certain not only to occur, but also be covered in an increasing number of reliable sources. In addition, the subject is "... of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." (WP:CRYSTAL) -- aBSuRDiST -T ☺ C- 07:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The villain, air time, guest stars and the Doctor are confirmed... how many people may have seen the trailer, or that Ten Pound Hammer hasn't seen it, is irrelevant, it is verifiable and was seen on the BBC by millions. The article contains other printed sources, and interest in the episode will be high. Certainly not in the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL which does not apply here, there is no speculative information therein. --Canley (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:FUTURE and WP:NOTABILITY. Seriously people, I see so many "keeps per WP:CRYSTAL" it is insane. The article contains no information partaining to the epiosde itself, is filled with non-information that the name has not been revealed yet, and lacks any sort of reliable sources; most information is coming from tabloids. The information that is available only relates to the production, which is best suited in List of Doctor Who serials. There is just too little information and notability to sustain a seperate article for now. "It exists" is not reason enough to have an article. Article creation should be suspended until we at least have a title, and we have enough sourceble information. — Edokter • Talk • 13:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The relevant guideline is WP:NFF. Satisfies that guideline, for me. Principal photography has clearly commenced, obviously notable subject, enough reliably sourced material to have some meaningful content in the article. AndyJones (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doctor_Who_2008_Christmas_special&oldid=223921750"