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. Courcelles (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Christmas special (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

Insufficient information at this very early stage to justify a separate article. We don't even have an episode title. Suggest a redirect to List of Doctor Who serials#Special (2010) which already contains all the information in this article. Maccy69 (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Even if the event is virtually certain to happen, there's not much point in having an article before the official title is known. Powers ^T 14:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom until more information (sourced, obviously) is available. umrguy 42 14:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we have well-sourced information on guest stars, so WP: CRYSTAL doesn't apply.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, but do you think there is enough information to justify a separate article, given what already exists at List of Doctor Who serials#Special (2010)? Maccy69 (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I do think so, yes. And it's certain to grow in the coming weeks/months. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 14:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep—WP:CRYSTAL is completely irrelevant, as it merely notes that, "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." This article contains no unverifiable speculation: it is all referenced. Indeed, point 1 of WP:CRYSTAL precisely covers such a situation. (Would you also nominate 2012 Summer Olympics for deletion on the basis that it's not happened yet?) ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 14:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it clear, I didn't nominate on the basis of WP:CRYSTAL and I agree it doesn't apply. Maccy69 (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what policy-based rationale does your nomination have? ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 14:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EPISODE on the basis that there isn't enough information to make notable outside of List of Doctor Who serials. Maccy69 (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what policy-based rationale does your nomination have? (WP:EPISODE does not appear to be a policy.) ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 15:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in two reliable sources. From WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". This is both, and so long as original research is avoided (which it is at present), there is no policy-based reason not to keep this. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We are 165 days away from broadcast, deletion and recreation would be a waste of time and information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hektor (talk • contribs)
I don't see how a redirect to the article with the same information wastes either. Maccy69 (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you nominated the article for deletion but, in fact, wanted it redirected? I'm not sure that's appropriate. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 15:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From what Alzarian16 quoted above, this is most certainly notable and if it didn't take place, there would be riots on the street (my street anycase). The article is not unsourced; I see no reason for deletion. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 15:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I'm a bit leery about the lack of a actual title, but if sources are already confirming guest stars, then that tips the scale slightly in favor of retention. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a CRYSTAL problem - at worst, it's a variation of WP:HAMMER, but even then, there's enough production details in reliable sources to know this is happening. While it likely would have been better to keep this separate until the name was at least known, it's fine to keep this for now. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Exception 1 of WP:CRYSTAL applies. This is something that is almost certain to happen, and if it *doesn't* happen, the reasons why will be notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is about a real thing, which will happen. It's only a stub at this point, but will presumably be expanded when the episode airs. In the meantime, this article will be useful in providing background information. In addition, sources have been cited - there are no grounds for deletion. - TALL^eN ^talk 16:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Sourced stub at this point will only grow Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Ottawa4ever and others. And we've done this before with the 2008 Christmas special, which was kept when there was apparently only a trailer available when it's article was written. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: we have a writer, basic plot summary, and confirmed guest stars. Balancing our policies, I think we can keep this article, especially regarding precedent. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cumulations of reasons: When more becomes known the title will change anyway. Still likely to be a stub for the foreseeable future. If didn't happen would be note in history of show and not need an article itself. (aside: Why wasn't title "Doctor Who 2010 Christmas special"?) GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scarcely worth arguing with because the article's obviously safe, but just for the record... When more becomes known the title will change anyway – so then we change the title. Since when is that sort of thing a reason for deletion? Shall we get rid of 2020 Summer Olympics because it will need renaming once we know which city will host it? Of course not!
Still likely to be a stub for the foreseeable future – WP:RUBBISH is absolutely not a reason to delete; there is no deadline and, in this case, we are certain to have expansion within months. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 16:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at the moment I do think this should be a redirect, but I expect we will see more information and the article expanded very soon so it's not really worth arguing. Edgepedia (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough reliable sources that both confirm its existence and the details mentioned. As with previous Xmas specials, further information is likely to be added soon but even the current amount justifies this article's existence at this point. Neither the nominator nor those !voting "delete" have cited any policy-based reasons to delete this article; especially WP:CRYSTAL does not apply in this case since the information is not speculative and the event is certain to happen (or, as pointed out above, will be notable even if it for some reason does not). Regards So Why 10:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles should only be deleted if they will never be suitable for Wikipedia, and this is definitely not the first time an event has been put up before occurring or being named. A simple name change will be a lot easier, and a lot less prone to loss of information, than deleting and recreating it. What exactly is the point in deleting this article when we know that an article about the exact same thing will be justifiable- and almost certainly created- in the next few months? 122.106.151.166 (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not going to speculate on the "why" of the AfD. htom (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who serials#Special (2010) - to be honest, there's so little to say about this at the moment that it doesn't need a separate article, especially since all the information here is already contained in that list. However, I don't think it's much of a problem either - it's already notable and virtually certain to be shown on schedule, so WP:CBALL doesn't apply, and it's likely we'll need the article pretty soon. Redirecting would be the best approach as it would allow it to be restored when there's more to say about it. Either way, it shouldn't be deleted outright. Robofish (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - not enough info just now, but deletion seems pointless since there will be at some point. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Will be expanded between now, airing and beyond as more information comes to light. I see little advantage to deleting this and starting over in December 2010. Donlock (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More information will come to light in the following weeks, and we'll need to start the article again using the same sourced information used in the article right now. It has already grown into a strong article, and we already know very valuable information about who will guest-star. Deletion is completely pointless. Hobapotter (talk) 22:59, 18 July 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.