Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grandfather Paradox (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grandfather Paradox (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character who fails WP:GNG, better fit for the Dr Who Wiki than here. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The info from AHistory seems to be enough to pass the GNG, although I agree that the other sources provided aren't brilliant, nor have I been able to find any others from a quick Google. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- A single usable reference doesn't pass WP:SUSTAINED, therefore it still fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Grandfather Paradox, there's a workable reference here and the parent article is rather stuffy. Szzuk (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm not a Dr. Who fan, and know nothing about this character, but I skimmed the article and it appears to be well written, and while the sourcing is light, it's sourced using a Dr. Who guidebook. It is also acceptably integrated with links to other Dr. Who articles, so I don't see a compelling reason to delete it. I also don't think a merge and redirect to Grandfather Paradox will work, since the articles are quite different, but perhaps a line or two could also go there. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:01, 27 April 2018 (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.