Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Doctor Who universe

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. Assessing this AfD under our policies it is clear that the article violates WP:PRIMARY - an essential part of WP:OR which is of course one of the Five pillars. The bulk of the information has been put together not from reliable sources, but from direct observation of the episodes, and speculation is part of that observation. One of the founding principles of our encyclopedia is that: “Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here.” In this article we have personal interpretations based on observations of number plates and tax discs in various Dr Who episodes. Comments throughout the discussion have asserted that there are some reliable sources supporting the article, and that the original research can be removed. I have been through the article and checked all 184 footnotes – all bar one is interpretation by an editor on a primary source; the only reliable source cited is used to confirm that the episode "Children in Need special" is also known as "Born Again" – it is not used to support the premise of the article. One of our reasons for deletion is that an article is based on original theories and conclusions – which this clearly is. However, there is a strong desire by people for this article to be kept. 19 people have !voted for keeping it, and only 5 have !voted for deletion. Also, FeydHuxtable says on WP:NORN – “we shouldnt enforce policy with the same rigour on trivial subjects as we do for biographies, economics, relgion etc.” And even though Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists states that “Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies…” by convention, lists are given somewhat more slack than the parent articles. There was no discussion as to questions of notability for this topic, as it was assumed by all that a Dr Who timeline would be an appropriate and notable topic. So it comes down to the question of should this article be deleted as it falls foul of the primary source policy, or should it be kept despite that, and with questions about the robustness of the research, because people like it,, and we shouldn’t be so harsh on a ”minor” list – especially as it is neatly formatted, and a lot of care and thought has gone into creating it. As it is assumed the topic is an appropriate and welcome one, but the concern is down to sourcing, it appears that the solution would be to source the article. Let’s be clear that as it currently stands the article does violate our policies, and as such it must be improved. But it seems appropriate to give the article creators time to source the article, and if the article is not satisfactorily sourced within, say, six months, that the matter can be brought again to AfD, with reference to the conclusion of this AfD. SilkTork *^YES! 12:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the Doctor Who universe[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a terrible article. It's a really terrible article. Since its inception, the article has suffered from original research problems because some stories cannot be given a definitive dating (that fact is notable in itself!), and we attempt to definitively date them anyway. The references aren't really references either; they're footnotes containing a lot of equivocating and uncertainty and general editorial statements that we prohibit for a very good reason. Worse, the article actually contradicts reliable sources, and that's a conscious decision done between 2007 and today, because I remember citing the 63-89 stories to reliable sources. I also do not think any amount of cleanup would solve the inherent synthesis and OR problems in this article. This article would be better on a project that allows original research, but not on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I second this. If I recall correctly, I think at one point the validity of the article was discussed and editors agreed it should only remain on the promise it could acquire reliable commentary to attest the notability of story dating in Doctor Who. It just doesn't belong on Wikipedia.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no deadline. SuperMarioMan (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has multiple independent RS. OR should be dealt with by excision, rather than deletion of sourced content which happens to share the same article. There's ultimately no policy-based reason for deletion articulated; both !voters make an argument that deletion is easier than cleanup, but that is uncompelling. Jclemens (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for what it's worth); the list is useful and combines information from various sources without contradicting them. Mark J (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks significant.--Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. This article is largely original research - unless the date is specified in the actual programme, we cannot guess at the dates, such as going on the number plate of cars. An educated guess does not equal fact, especially in a time travelling programme like Doctor Who.. Paul75 (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See what I wrote on this very subject back in 2005, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional historical events, Timeline of fictional future events. I still don't recall what the book was, but certainly Lance Parkin has written two: ISBN 0426204719 and ISBN 0975944665. Uncle G (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Uncle G: OK, I read it and understand why combining fictional universes in an article is probably a pretty bad idea in the long run (or the short run as far as I can tell). But I'm no closer to understanding your stance on this article: Keep or delete, and why? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Frequent violations of WP:OR; there are places on the internet for this sort of thing, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. Malcolm XIV (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There may be a case for editing down some of the commentary to comply with WP:OR, but the bulk of this article simply collates information that has been broadcast, as the extensive footnotes show. Dogbert (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - Very informative, and with a bit of cleanup can become a brilliant article. I refuse to allow this to be deleted.--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 20:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Works such as The Doctor Who Programme Guide routinely comment on the chronology of the episodes, e.g. "The TARDIS lands in 1430 inside the Tomb of Yetaxa...", "The scene is London in 2167.". Collating such commentary to assist navigation amongst our various Doctor Who articles is quite proper and helpful to our readership. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know about those works; please read my nomination statement. What I'm saying is that people are consciously ignoring them, including their own observations based on, say, car number plates or props in the background, and no amount of cleanup will prevent or totally remove that. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have edited the article or its talk page for at least a year. Per our deletion policy, you should raise your concerns at the article's talk page. If they lack consensus then you should accept this with good grace or start an RFC. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't bother editing the article or its talk page any more because the editors who maintain it these days are the same ones that resisted my efforts to remove the original research. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was your efforts to remove the supposed OR involved wholesale deletions containing much material that no-one had any problem about. No-one has any problem with you including dates derivable from reliable sources (I don't add dates from these published works myself, as I don't have copies). And if you have any problems with specific entries you can raise them in the discussion pages (though I cannot guarantee your view will always be accepted). Cuddlyopedia (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has some serious problems, but deleting it would be a mistake. It's certainly notable, and could probably be reliably sourced. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that people ignore reliable sources and add original research is a problem, but it's not a problem deletion can solve. If we went around deleting every article that suffers from such problems, it would make a farce of the deletion policy that clearly says that any page that can be improved though editing - no matter how much work it might be (WP:DEADLINE!) - should not be deleted. It has been said already (even by the nominator) that reliable sources exist that could serve to fix the problems mentioned as reasons for deletion - so the correct way to deal with this article is to fix it, not to delete it. Regards So Why 22:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does need a clean up, but that is not a reason for deletion. People will add original research, but that happens to most articles, and is also not a reason to delete. Martin451 (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mainly per Jclemens and Dogbert. Also:
- "...I remember citing the 63-89 stories to reliable sources" - And would it really be so difficult to see such sources restored in the references section, rather than go with the easy route by nominating the article for deletion?
- "...we attempt to definitively date them anyway"/"...people are consciously ignoring them, including their own observations based on, say, car number plates or props in the background" - Then it is the editors of the article who constitute the real issue here, and who should alter their approach, rather than the article itself, which is suffering from a drop in editing standards. Plenty of the Doctor's adventures can be attributed to reliable sources, or even to the dialogue itself within a particular story.
- "I also do not think any amount of cleanup would solve the inherent synthesis and OR problems in this article"/"...no amount of cleanup will prevent or totally remove that" - Why? Because it's too long? Too complicated a task? The page can be rewritten if necessary, and Wikipedia has no deadlines. It would seem a shame to delete the article, no matter how "terrible" (as is asserted) it may be, when some story dating can be verified using reliable sources (and, as the nominator himself admits in the first quotation above, reliable sources do exist). I believe that Doctor Who: The Legend by Justin Richards (BBC Books, originally published 2003, reprinted since), for example, contains locations and dates for each story. SuperMarioMan (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1. The question of OR has been extensively discussed on the articles discussion pages - see here and here. As part of these discussions, the question was referred to WP:NORN for their opinion - see here. As you can see, there is far from a consensus that the article is in breach of OR - in fact, the consensus is that it is not - and if a supposed breach of OR is the 'grounds' for deletion, then we're even further from a consensus on that! I submit, that if anyone is going to nominate an article for deletion on the grounds of a breach of Wikipedia policy, they should at least obtain some consensus that there is such a breach. The nominator - a poster who has had a recent period of being banned from editing - has signally failed to do so on previous occassions, and having lost those arguments is now attempting to abuse the deletion procedure as a another method of attack. 2. The article does not give definitive dates for anything. It is quite clear that "all such attributed dates are possibilities only" - so in order to demonstrate a breach of WP:OR or WP:POV you must establish that there are dates given that are not a possibility based on the information referenced. The article further explains that "Many stories and episodes depict or refer to events similar to historical events in real life, or involve characters identifiable as real-life historic individuals, and it is therefore a possibility (but not a certainty) that they have corresponding dating. Similarly, many dates or periods of time are given without specifying the calendar or units of time; but it is therefore possible (though not certain) that the dates are given in the Gregorian calendar and the units of time are those in common, everyday usage in the real world. Finally, when a character gives the date or span of time, it is assumed that they are correct. To minimise duplication, these rationales are not explicitly referred to in the table, but the provisional nature of any attributable dates based on them should be borne in mind" (my italics). All possible dates are based on information from the episodes themselves - and fictional works are reliable sources for their content - with basic logical inferences that anyone can verify for themselves (such routine calculations are not forbidden by WP:OR - see here). Everything is referenced; all possibilities are noted - and it is left to the reader to decide for themselves which if any possibilities they wish to accept. No attempt is made to impose a particular view on anyone. 3. If the nominator has dates based on reliable sources, let him enter them in the article; at least bring them up in the discussion pages. No-one's stopping him. 4. Although not the most viewed article, people do find it a useful collation. I would refer to note 2: "...I just wanted to double-check that I'm not going to say anything that contradicts something; so I went and looked back and there's a whole kind of timeline of everywhere he's been; and, and I looked, and it was, oh, he was actually in Rome" - James Moran, writer of "Fires of Pompeii", interviewed in the What Has 'The Romans' Ever Done For Us? documentary extra on The Romans DVD." (Though not a direct reference to this article, it is at least a reference to something very similar!) Cuddlyopedia (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, bringing in "possibly", "maybe", things like that invite original research in by the back door. The thing is, we also go way beyond just using elementary logic in our dating. I remember one episode being dated as taking place in a particular month purely because of a prop of a poster. It'd be an impressive piece for a thesis, or a book of your own, but not as a Wikipedia article. Take it to the TARDIS wikia. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a very short thesis or book! Again, AfD is not the place to dispute whether the article is in breach of WP:OR. There are other places for that, which have been used, and the consensus has been that it is not in breach. You can always revive the arguments. Good luck. As for your specific one: There are a number of episodes that have possible dates attributed to them on the basis of posters giving dates for specific events that occur in the episodes themselves. The article just presents the information that such a poster can be seen - no-one has to accept it. (And why is a poster giving a date any less valid than a character giving a date?) But, if you don't like the use of posters in this manner, bring it up on the article's discussion page. The same if you think any arguments presented go "way beyond just using elementary logic" - there may be a valid point there, and we should try an reach consensus on what keeps us within the 'routine calculations' acceptable to WP:OR and what does not. What you are trying to do is to delete the entirety of the article, the vast majority of which no-one has any doubts about, because of a minority of entries you are not happy with for some reason. (And I don't want to take it to TARDIS wikia, as that has no requirement for reliable sources!) Cuddlyopedia (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a consensus that it's not in breach; at best, there's no consensus it's a breach. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: OR can be dealt with by editing, by dispute resolution and if all else fails by admin action. Since the whole article isn't OR - we know that the scripts and related collateral in some case date themselves, and where they do not, this is also worth noting - there is no reason to delete it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that original research is inherent in the article's existence. If I thought there was genuinely a small chance that the problems could be fixed without deletion, I'd slap the OR tags on. But no, I think that we can't fully remove the original research elements in the page, hence why it's at AFD. Yes, AFD is not for cleanup, but that does not mean we can keep every single article with OR problems under the fallacious assumption that all OR problems can be fixed. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OR problems afflicting part of an article can be fixed by their removal or, more ideally, attribution, where possible, to reliable sources (and, in the case of this article, there are plenty of those out there). If an editor were so bold as to transfer all questionable chronology to a new section, as Whoniverse93 suggests below, and strengthen dates that we can be sure of via good sourcing, the problem would be solved. It's simply a matter of hard work - work that wouldn't be so insurmountable as to leave deletion the only possible solution for this article. OR may be "inherent" in the approach that is used when editing this article, but not in in its very existence - the worth of its existence can be proven by making use of the sources available to make it more authoritative. SuperMarioMan (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. The simple fact is that in creating a chronology of Doctor Who, a show that has been on the air forty-six years, will always require original research, for many reasons: UNIT, the lag of reliable sources behind transmission of an episode, sources ignoring the spinoffs, many episodes being impossible to date specifically (i.e. most of the 2000s episodes), et cetera. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already suggested, the problem seems less about the page itself, more people's approaches to editing it (your comment about "people consciously ignoring [reliable sources]" would seem to support that). OR is not like how Mediaeval peasants saw the Plague, striking people down here, there and everywhere by the arbitrary whim of the Grim Reaper, it doesn't originate from nowhere, and it is not "inherent" in an article's subject since it is easy enough to remove if one makes a commitment; OR is inserted into articles by editors and left through unvoiced consensus which deems that it should be allowed to remain. Change people's mindset and an article will be less vulnerable to OR. Insertion can be countered by extraction and if it's necessary, that is what I suggest: stripping the article down so that all its content is attributable to reliable sources (there's the book I linked to above, and the BBC's classic Doctor Who episode guide at BBC Online is another). "...will always require original research" - perhaps for some stories where the dating is vague, but not all. In Pyramids of Mars, Laurence Scarman explicitly gives the year as 1911; in Warriors of the Deep, the Doctor says that he, Tegan and Turlough are all in the year 2084. Unless referring to explicit, stated, undeniable dialogue is somehow now to be considered OR, I fail to see how that particular card can be played. Those were just two examples that I plucked from the top of my head in an instant, and they pretty soundly beat assertions of OR. How many more?

Yes, the programme's 46 years old, but the BBC site gives dates for all the classic stories, so I don't really see what longevity has to do with it. Certainly, there's confusion about many of the Third Doctor stories, but if necessary, we can just restrict our chronology to stories with definite dating (of which there are many) and transfer the Pertwee adventures to a subsection or, most radically, the UNIT dating controversy page. Spin-offs are another thorny issue, but again, there are plenty of Doctor Who stories where we can be sure of the chronology, enough to leave an article that is reliable and of sufficient length (if the page must be specifically renamed "Chronology of the Doctor Who stories" or the like, so be it). And even if some stories are "impossible to date specifically", what is the problem with giving the best approximation, backed up by sources? That would be far more helpful to a reader than simply having the page deleted and therefore losing even that.

I'm puzzled by how you admit that reliable sources are available, and that you have edited this page in the past, but are now proposing its deletion, mainly (as it seems to me) for the reason that editors' attitudes have changed over the years. The damage can be reversed. Perhaps not every story could be included, but a collection of definitely-dated, sourced bits of chronology would make a useful addition for interested readers. SuperMarioMan (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even when I was editing it, I was adding some original research in. While we do have stories which are definitively dated (Warriors of the Deep, The Waters of Mars, et cetera), quite a lot of them will be. I've no problem with using the BBC's sources, but really, the least we can do is totally scorch the article immediately and use only dates provided in reliable sources who have done the research for us. And we need a prohibition against citing the episodes unless we have an explicitly mentioned date in the Gregorian (or Julian) calendar or can derive it from basic primary school mathematics (2005, plus twelve months, is 2006). Also, original research is an inherent problem in some cases, mostly but not wholly were we're categorising things with labels that have different definitions. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A complete failure to take account of the fact that fictional material is a reliable source for it's content; and why are we restricting ourselves to only one category of routine calculations? If you're going to keep on about the need to apply the OR policy, you should use all of that policy, and not just select those bits that happen to suit your agenda. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sceptre in that, really, anything questionable needs attention. To take an example, here is the note accompanying the dating for "The Doctor's Daughter" (currently listed as 6012):

"Donna recognised '60120724' as the date in the format yyyymmdd (year month day), with '60120717' being seven days earlier. The Doctor said that it was the New Byzantine calendar, but otherwise did not correct her. Although the relationship with the Gregorian calendar is not given, it's possible that it's simply a renaming and reformatting of the latter (if not, then the episode is set at an unknown future date as it involves a human extraterrestrial colony)."

With no source to shed light on the relationship between the calendars, it is irresponsible to claim (in the main article body) that the year of the story setting is in the 7th (Gregorian) millennium. However, I concur with Cuddlyopedia that we should not be selective about the dating system that we use. Perhaps adventures such as this one (where an unfamiliar system is being applied), should be moved to a separate section named "Non-Gregorian dating systems", or such like. SuperMarioMan (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say that the episode is set in 6012; just that it is possible that it is set at that date, because it is possible that the New Byzantine date given is simply a restatement of the Gregorian calendar (the character Donna Noble acted as if it was). On the question of calendars, the article states in the heading that "many dates or periods of time are given without specifying the calendar or units of time; but it is therefore possible (though not certain) that the dates are given in the Gregorian calendar and the units of time are those in common, everyday usage in the real world. ... To minimise duplication, these rationales are not explicitly referred to in the table, but the provisional nature of any attributable dates based on them should be borne in mind." However, this article was originally placed where it is now, but moved by me to the 'unknown future' section, precisely because of this doubt. I later moved it back on reflection as that specific date is a possibility. If you're unhappy with the positioning of this episode, then raise it on the discussion page and let's see what people think about it. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Almost EVERY fiction page IS orginal research. It is impossible to "verify" the facts as they are fictional! The only reference we could say is GO WATCH THE EPISODE! That would be pretty silly and we would get references such as <ref>The End of time 00:30:00</ref>. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That argument only works for undisputable things, such as, say, the Doctor regenerating at the end of The End of Time. This goes way beyond that, in a few examples relying on background props that very few people will notice. Which is OR, as it falls way outside "basic deduction". Sceptre ^(talk) 00:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it's the number of people who'd notice that's the relevant criteria now is it, not whether it's a reliable source or not? You're getting desperate. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you define "background prop" if soemon can point to a prop that gives the date then it can be verified as a primary source sources don't need to be obvious to notice only there if you go looking. --Nate ^t/_c 16:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mr Saxon poster in the background in "Captain Jack Harkness" dates that to being close to series 3 of Doctor Who. And that's beyond what we can use primary sources for. We can only use primary sources for something that everyone can agree on. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which might be a good argument, except for the fact that the article does not use that poster to date anything! A different poster is referred to, which gives a specific date for an event (a dance) that occurs in the episode. Other examples where posters are used are "Rose", "Unquiet Dead", Delta and the Bannermen, "Adrift", again all of which posters give specific dates. And these aren't just posters in the background - they are deliberately pointed out by the camera focusing on them! Cuddlyopedia (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I personally find this article very useful to Doctor Who episodes. However, I do think it requires a large clean up. Dates that are not 100% known should be put under a "not known" section, for example. I do understand the reasons for the AFD but I think it could be a very valuable article. Whoniverse93 (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think there's a fundamental problem with this kind of article (and the episode themselves can serve as a reference), but I am concerned at making assumptions and extrapolations, which falls well into original research. E.g., there's the nonsense of claiming the exact date of 1,002,164 because the Doctor once says "a million years" and the year then was 2164 - it seems highly unlikely he meant *exactly* one million years to the year. It also doesn't make sense to use the term "c." when you're then giving that many significant figures, and we do this several times in the article. It would be like saying the Dinosaurs were wiped out approximately 65,000,004 years ago, on the grounds that I read in a book 4 years ago that the Dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago! I raised this point here [1], but it isn't fixed. The discussion there talks in terms of what the editors think is "likely", which falls well under original research. Mdwh (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A complete misrepresentation of what happened and the arguments for the current policy (which is basically that it's the only choice that's not WP:POV). But again, the AfD is not the place to conduct these disputes. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, because it's an example of the original research in this article. Obviously you don't agree that it's OR, but other editors here can make up their own mind. I'm not sure how what I said is a misrepresentation - what I gave is my own representation of my own argument. Mdwh (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may have represented your own argument accurately, but you misrepresented what happened and the opposing argument. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – At this point, my own feeling is that this whole conversation belongs as a section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who. I compliment those editors on their notably many fine articles and suggest they take up the challenge of improving this one as well. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are reliable sources for the dates of many stories, and for at least a range for other stories. To the extent there is original research that should be addressed by editing, not deletion of the entire article. Rlendog (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep—while I agree the article is in a pretty bad state right now, it has potential; much of Doctor Who chronology can be reliably sourced (and thus put in that page), and anything that can't is easily removable. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 22:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - only useful for fans - and I'm not sure it's even useful for them since it's been made so ridiculously complicated by editors trying to join contradictory hints and guesses into one time line. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removed 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not a timeline (as it says - have people actually read the introduction?), which would imply that it seeks to make a definitive ordering of the episodes. It is simply a chronology, i.e. a list ordered by date of the information contained in the episodes that can potentially be used to give possible dates. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the "only useful for fans" comment. Most articles are about fictional things, and I really don't think anyone would bother reading them if they weren't a fan. Dream Focus 08:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete seems overlapping with List_of_Doctor_Who_serials, List_of_Torchwood_serials, andList_of_The_Sarah_Jane_Adventures_serials. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful list for those who wish to navigate through the timeline of the series, Doctor Who a time traveler after all, and it good to have an article to straighten out when everything happened at. For a such a long running and massive series, an article to sort through the information, is a perfectly reasonable thing to have. Dream Focus 08:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does need some clean-up, and there are issues mentioned above which require clarification, but this is a well-researched and useful article. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & clean up, making derived (i.e. unstated but implied) dates more obvious, an asterisk would do it. --Nate ^t/_c 16:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.