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; seeing as the title has just been officially confirmed, it's all moot now.. (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 18:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who) (moved to The Waters of Mars)[edit]

2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Pretty much all just rumours and refuted facts; the lead section is mostly wrong, the title is wrong, et cetera. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong, speedy keep - it's going to start growing fast, soon (these things always do). Plus, as far as I can see, everything is sourced/referenced properly. There's currently a discussion about the title ongoing here. If there's any specific information that you object to, you can always deal with it by correcting, citing or whatever! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Just hold out four days until Planet of the Dead airs Tphi (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Undoubtedly a candidate for requires serious editing, but given that the BBC have already stated that this programme will be shown, it's not even all that crystalbally.Red Fiona (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to The Waters of Mars, based on Total TV Guide. Reliable sources have reported on this, it's been filmed, etc. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as I noted on WT:WHO, we don't have proof that the second special is the Christmas Special. Indeed, RTD specifically stated in DWM that it would be before the christmas period. It is therefore wrong to have this in a page titled "Christmas special". Eleventh Doctor (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That could just as easily be an argument for moving to a better title, not deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, it could be called someting like Next Doctor Who special, in the vein of Next United Kingdom general election - we know there'll be one, we know some things about it, we just don't know when. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - but we know almost nothing about it - I certainly don't think there's anything in there that justifies having a whole article about it. That information could be placed somewhere else. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, speedy delete. This is an encyclopaedia, not an outlet for breaking news. There is nothing of value in this article - it is rumour and speculation. Yes, we all like Doctor Who and are Really Looking Forward to the new episodes, but what Wikipedia needs is reliable and reasoned commentary and I suspect it will be a long time before the BBC reveals anything like enough to justify more than a mention of the Christmas episodes in the main Doctor Who article. I42 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I knew someone would bring up WP:CRYSTAL. That says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." This is notable (see sources in article), almost certain to take place (filming has been completed), and preparation is underway/partially completed (the special is in post-production). WP:CRYSTAL supports keeping this article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but we don't yet know what "the event" is in anything like enough detail to justify an article yet. A few tidbits of information have been released and from that the article deduces with no justification it's the Christmas special. This is not verifiably certain to be the Christmas special so it fails WP:CRYSTAL, amongst others. I42 (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article as it currently stands makes no such deduction. We know from reliable sources that the special has been filmed and will air. We just don't know precisely when. (That's one of the reasons it should be moved from the "Christmas special" title.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's in the title itself. Renamed, as proposed elsewhere, I would consider the article merely premature (there isn't even any guarantee there'll be a trailer for the episode after this weekend's edition) but far less problematic. But this AfD concerns the 2009 Christmas Special, about which we know absolutely nothing. I42 (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't be pedantic. You know that we mean it to be the upcoming special; if you want it renamed, rename. This AfD is not about the Xmas special, it is about the article in question, which is about the second special. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not pedantry, it is policy. We do not know the title. See WP:HAMMER for why we cannot name the article "2nd Doctor Who Special" (or whatever), and we cannot reliably attribute an episode name yet. It would be great to get an article going because we're all fans of the show, I'm sure - but WP:ILIKEIT is no reason. Why not usefy the article and continue working on it until it's ready to go? I42 (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What policy says that we shouldn't name it "2nd Doctor Who special"? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You're being pedantic now :-) Yes, I know WP:HAMMER is an essay. I42 (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted, I do not support renaming, but it's clear mine is a minority opinion. Whatever the outcome, however, I strongly feel that the existing title must be deleted; renaming alone will leave it as a redirect. I42 (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to 2009 Doctor Who Special #2 or something similar until a title is available. If the problem is calling it the Christmas Special, then let's just not call it the Christmas Special. -- SonicAD (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It couldn't be precisely that, as we can't have #hashes in article titles. But take a peep at the article talkpage, and see what you think of the proposed move there. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Move to 2009 Doctor Who Special #2 or something similar, until more information (and most importantly, a reliable source for the title) comes available. The existence of the event is not in question, as per previously mentioned comments about it being announced, in post-production, etc. However, the article title should wait at least until we see the credit sequence for Saturday's "Planet of the Dead", because the source (the lead paragraph of a Totally TV article) has several other factual errors regarding the show. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to "The Waters of Mars". There is no reason to regard Total TV Guide as non-reliable source. The TV Guide article may be called "The Rumour Mill", the title is not listed as a rumour, but appears in the lead of that article, making it a fact. The title is legit, and all information contained in the Wikipedia article is sourced. — Edokter • Talk • 20:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- enough information, sourced, that its notable. Seems to meet the 1st exception under WP:CRYSTAL- "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The sourcing is there to show both. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to the title. The existence of this episode is certain, shooting has been completed, it is in post production. And trailer airs in three days or so. Hektor (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not crystalballing because we have plenty of sources that it exists and is notable with reliable sources. Title can be changed afterwards (like it was done with 2008 Christmas special (Doctor Who)) but that's not what AFD is for. The fact that there might be mistakes is not a reason for deletion, rather for correction. There are plenty of sources and in 4 days, there will likely be more. Regards SoWhy 01:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Do any other shows have articles on upcomming specials? Will this artilce remain noteable after it airs? Looking at Category:South Park, Category:South Park episodes, Category:Star Wars shows movies, books, and what not, but no specific forecast episodes, season premier's don't have articles, while the season itself may. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephiroth storm (talk • contribs)
  • Remember to use ":" when linking categories, i.e. [[:Category:South Park]] instead of [[Category:South Park]]. As for the question, each show is different. Doctor Who is one of the few shows where every episode has a valid article with multiple reliable sources existing. So I do not think comparing whether other stuff exits or does not exist will help us here, but only whether the article in question is about something notable and if that is sourced. Regards SoWhy 06:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, why is there an independant article for each episode? I don't see that as very benificial, I find it hard to believe that each article passed WP:NF Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are other articles about episodes relevant to this article? We are here to reach consensus whether this article meets requirements for inclusion, not any other. SoWhy 10:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article for each episode. Some episodes are significant enough to have won a Hugo award, so I think it makes sense. Hektor (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some episodes, ok. Not all. I have a hard time believing they are all worthy of their own article. In any case, In reguards to this article, I still don't see how it is noteable. I understand it may become noteable in the future, but making an article simply because they are planning a special seems ridiculous and non encyclopedic. Nothing personal. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each Doctor Who episode typically has a new setting and new supporting cast (only two actors will be normally be in all the episodes), looking through the individual episode articles that strikes me as the best way to present the information (there are 204 other episode articles, by the way). This is simply extending the format for current Doctor Who episodes to one that has been filmed (so no longer 'planned' as you say) and about which reliable information is being made available. Also don't be confused by the term 'Special' this is continuing the series as previous episodes have, it's just being called a special because there isn't a full series this year. Maccy69 (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per above. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename Articles about future films and television production are only crystal when there's not sufficient reliable information to build an article with. Since there are reliable sources and plenty of things can be said about the cast a production, CRYSTAL does not apply here. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move If this Afd is allowed to run to it's conclusion I would suggest that it's moved to it's title (if announced at the end of the special broadcast on Saturday) or 2009 Second special (Doctor Who). Moving articles during Afd can cause problems so I would suggest that the article is move-protected. Alternatively I would suggest that the nominator withdraw this Afd and move this article now to 2009 Second special (Doctor Who). Edgepedia (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it make more sense to wait till April 11 and rename with the actual title of the episode. Hektor (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to 2009 Second special (Doctor Who). The article itself is a well sourced account of a TV programme that has been filmed and is yet to be scheduled. The only issue is with the article title since we know, from numerous reliable sources, that it will not be scheduled at Christmas. "The Waters of Mars" title is from a single source with no official BBC connection (unlike, say, The Radio Times or Doctor Who Magazine) and can't be considered any more reliable than any other media article (such as an article in The Sun), regardless of any distinction the publication itself claims between "rumour" and "fact" (they could still easily be wrong). Once the title is revealed the article can be moved again. Maccy69 (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-cited, and if it _doesn't_ happen, it will be notable for that reason, like Shada. Rename later if necessary.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and Rename Per above arguments to keep and rename. Jon (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename- The name of this special will be announced after the easter special on saturday probably and it is notable enough. On BBC Breakfast Russell T. Davies said it will air in novemberish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.171.110 (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article can offer very very little right now, as almost no information has been announced, and some of this informations seems unreliable. Perhaps it ought to be written in 6 months, just before the broadcast, when proper confirmed information will abound. — 86.153.63.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Note that this !vote was cast only after the user "lost" an argument on the article's talkpage. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 12:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how this has an impact on the debate or my addition to it. I am merely trying to offer a voice in the AfD debate. Had I been aware of this debate before that discussion, I would have offered the same opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.63.30 (talk • contribs)

• Keep I think it's notable, and it will just get still more coverage above and beyond it's existing notability. rootology (C)(T) 18:41, 10 April 2009 (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.