Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Time Lords (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. Singu larity 04:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Time Lords (Doctor Who)

This new article duplicates information in the article Time Lord. Since the latter article can comfortably contain such a list, there is insufficient reason for this content fork. Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 10:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --OZ OO (What?) 10:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is already covered by Template:Doctornav for navigation reasons and can live in the main article per nom. Pedro | Chat 10:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pe nom. It duplicates information in the article Time Lord per MHW (but is not redundant to the template despite what Pedro thinks; the Doctor is (or various Doctors are) absolutely not the only Time Lord). Dr.Who 11:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no reason why the above template could not be expanded to include other timelords for reasons of navigation. I only mentioned the template as a common argument for lists is that they serve as navigation, when often a template or use of catergorisation is better. Pedro | Chat 12:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: There is plenty of reason not to expland that template. Most of the Time Lord names are simply trivia compared to the template as it stands. The template is about the Doctor himself. Dr.Who 17:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Keep I've informed the WikiProject Doctor Who that this list is up for AfD here on their Project's Talk page. Zidel333 13:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you want to keep an article with no redeeming quality, notability or out-of-universe context?~Zythe^{Talk to me!}
Delete per what I said above.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since the author hasn't gone beyond the trial balloon stage so far. In truth, the title of the article currently called Time Lord should be moved and renamed "Time Lord (Doctor Who)" and the author should expand upon that article. Mandsford 14:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as that article is not in this AFD, please take this suggestion to Talk:Time Lord. --Dhartung | Talk 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Dhartung is, of course, correct that this isn't the place for this discussion, but I can't resist pointing out that the Doctor Who meaning of "Time Lord" is clearly the primary topic for that phrase. None of the meanings at Time Lord (disambiguation) are anywhere near as noteworthy as the Doctor Who meaning. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but oppose suggestion of renaming Time Lord to "Time Lord (Doctor Who)". Percy Snoodle 14:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this is a rather small list, it can just go into the main Time Lord article. DonQuixote 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other comments, with a redirect to Time Lord#Partial list of Time Lords appearing in Doctor Who. The information is best suited to that article. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, and oppose renaming to "Time Lord (Doctor Who)", which is only required for disambiguation of similairly-titled articles, of which there are none. — Edokter • Talk • 17:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't speediable? There's nothing here!! -- Ben 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe it quite satisfies any of the criteria for speedy deletion. I would've proposed deletion, were it not likely the editor who started the article would object. Hence, nomination. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thanks. -- Ben 19:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already covered in other articles(Black Dalek 18:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete mainly because the list in Time Lord is longer, and partly referenced. If that article deems the material worthy of a subarticle, no opposition to a breakout.--Dhartung | Talk 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this information (and more) is already included in Time Lord, and doesn't yet warrant its own article. --Brian Olsen 04:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a category disguised as a list; in any event, remove "Ace[1]" as non-canon; in any event, if kept, would require renaming to something like [[Partial list of Time Lords who have been identified as such -- Simon Cursitor 06:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Time Lord#Partial list of Time Lords appearing in Doctor Who. Simple. I like lists, but this is an incomplete version of the lists on the Time Lord page. Wolf of Fenric 13:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page is just on the time lords that have appeared in Doctor Who and I have never seen any pages on wikipedia with the exact information like this so in other words, this page is of something new. Victory93 17/8/2007
Delete per above. — Deckill er 03:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Victory93 - follow this link to find this information already listed elsewhere. Wolf of Fenric 16:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It can be covered in other articles, and the list is not really big enough to warrant it's own page. StuartDD 20:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — redundant with Time Lord, which can comfortably contain such a list. If the list at Time Lord becomes unweildy, then it can be broken out in accordance with WP:SS — after discussion on the article's talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:32, 18 August 2007 (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.