Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Eleventh Hour (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 Keep. (Non-admin closure) Swarm^(Talk) 03:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Eleventh Hour (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

All we have right now is a title. No reliable sources. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now. We have a confirmed title, but that is all. Edgepedia (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have more than a title, we have sourced information about the two main cast (Matt Smith and Karen Gillan), the writer (Moffat), the director (Adam Smith), the producers and so forth. And we are two months away from broadcast. I think that deletion discussion should be about the validity of the topic and not content on the article btw. Hektor (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no point deleting this. 121.217.20.154 (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All we have is duplicate information from Doctor Who (2010 series) and List of Doctor Who serials, so this article adds nothing, not until episode-specific information becomes available. — Edokter • Talk • 12:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that information is thin on the ground, right now. But look at it this way, we know that the episode will premiere, will be notable, and will receive specific and detailed coverage in reliable sources. We have a reliable source that confirms its existance, and we know that the article will simply be recreated in a few weeks, as more information comes along. Thus, I think it's less hassle to keep this article and expand it as appropriate. WP:CRYSTAL applies, certainly, except that this is an event that is sure to take place; the uncertainty associated with typical articles about future events isn't here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's stub, but it is sourced & be a full article at some point; i.e. it has potential and there is not crystal balling in what's there now. --Nate ^t/_c 14:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Exception 1 of WP:CRYSTAL applies here, methinks. We have reliably sourced information that its likely going to happen, and if it doesn't, the reasons why will likely be notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A highly anticipated episode of Doctor Who, the page will receive a high influx of traffic in the days to come when there's more confirmed information. Plenty of Doctor Who episodes are posted well in advance before sufficient information is provided for them. As an example, I'll cite The Waters of Mars, whose earliest entry was in 13 July 2008 and the episode itself did not come out well past one year of the edit, sometime in last November. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver Buizel (talk • contribs) 14:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Who (2010 series) untill there is more information. All the information on this episode (which amounts to "The Eleventh Hour is the first episode of British science fiction in a new Doctor Who television series, which is expected to be broadcast in Q2 2010. This will be the first full episode to star Matt Smith as the Doctor, and Karen Gillan as companion Amy Pond.") can be put there. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now At the moment, all we know is the episode title and nothing else. I say delete the article until we have enough reliable information about the episode to warrant a seperate article. Looneyman (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If we were several months away from the episode's first broadcast I might agree with deletion, but I don't see the point in deleting a page that will just be recreated anyway within the next few weeks. --DaveJB (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unlike the second and third announced 11th Doctor episodes, there is currently enough verified information out to justify it, I feel. Plus I agree that there's no real point when in less than a month it would be back up. Kuralyov (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Just a title and the fact that it is the first episode is in there, it could alway be un-redirected when we find other info to add. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please dont delete this, there's no point, this is confirmed the title and will be edited into a more detailed artidle shortly before and after the episode airs.
Keep - Like already stated often: this is the title of the first new episode and soon a plethora of information will be put in this stubby entry.
Redirect/Keep Sufficient reliable sources are guaranteed to become available. (Note: This is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL - it will happen.) It seems pointless deleting this to be recreated in a couple of months time. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For now, Redirect to series article - there is no sense in deleting the article outright when it would need to be recreated come March or April. However, beyond basic production details such as writer and director, the only information at present is a one-sentence note on production. Also, can it be verified through other sources that the shooting referred to is definitely for the first episode, beyond the synthesis that the image depicts shooting for the first episode because of what the Doctor happens to be wearing? SuperMarioMan (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As an article about an upcoming episode it is appropriate that this article should be here. Enough information is known about it so far to justify its existence, and more will be made available in the coming weeks until its transmission. Absurdtrousers (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per <Hektor> —Preceding unsigned comment added by C Scrutinizer (talk • contribs) 01:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would suggest that this is taken to a merger discussion rather than AFD - merger is much better place for discussion of "Redirect now till more info/ keep now cause we have enough info" - as this discussion is highly unlikely to lead in a deletion of the article. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per <Hektor> Sabrebattletank (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough to justify its existence and as time passes ever more will become available Jasonfward (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the aforementioned reasons. Also, re:188.221.79.22 - I think merging for a few weeks is as pointless as is deleting for a few weeks.129.67.53.67 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are reliable sources for the fact that the first episode of the next season of DW has been written and filmed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the episode is going to air within a couple of months, and interest in the new series (with a new Doctor in Matt Smith) and the recent specials is going to be high. 21:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.177.67 (talk)

Keep of course. Ok, there's not much info at the moment but within a couple of months, it will surely blossom... Blaine Coughlan (talk) 01:36, 9 February 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.