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. Tone 09:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who planets[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Overly in-depth, in-universe, WP:PLOT-only topic that fails GNG as far as I can see. No way am I looking individually at 400+ references, but I'm not seeing anything to establish notability with a cursory glance. If there isn't one already, I'm sure a setting article on the series' universe/multiverse could flourish, but that would in no way require such a list of minutia. Proper context for minor locations is certainly covered in the text of the few hundred episode articles, so there is no way you could justify this being a necessary split. This is information only the most hardcore fans need, which I'm sure is covered at Fandom or another wiki on the series. TTN (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure WP:FANCRUFT, no evidence of WP:LISTN, indiscriminate collection of information. Sorry to delete something that must have taken ages to make, but really don't see how this passes WP:GNG and WP:NOT. FOARP (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ALLPLOT with no indication of its encyclopedic importance. This information is already on the Dr. Who Wiki so it doesn't need to remain here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a really good crafted list article. Some editors believe that only real-life topics have value in an encyclopedia, but well crafted sub-pages of extremely popular franchises have their purpose as well. --Gonnym (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely do, if they pass WP:LISTN. However, this doesn't, as it fails WP:NOTPLOT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can and have voted keep on articles with significant amounts of fictional content. There are editors out there who are under the impression that I am some kind of deluded BSG/Star Wars/Star Trek fanboi because of the regularity with which I do so. However, in each case it's because I've found sources sustaining notability of the article. In this case, I cannot find any such sources. If there are reliably-sourced books or articles out there discussing the planets of Doctor Who, I have failed to find them. FOARP (talk) 09:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the entries are one-offs, refugees from the planet FANCRUFT. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zamper links to a stub article with no references. Mondas has references but all of them from primary sources. Gallifrey has a long article with 84 references, I not bothering to look through them all right now. What about other worlds linked? Skaro, Vortis (Doctor Who), Telos (Doctor Who), Mars (Doctor Who). How many of these meet Wikipedia's standards for notability? If enough of them are valid articles then this list is justified. If not then just redirect this to Doctor Who. While listing information does help people understand this notable long lived series better, they can find this information easily on wikia/fandom with far more detail so no reason for it to remain on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 15:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: These should be done on a case-by-case basis. ミラ P 23:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The list or the planets? A list article is valid if it aids in navigation, listing links to related articles. But if all those articles are going to be deleted/redirected/merged anyway, then its pointless. Dream Focus 01:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all those planet articles, and they all seem like fancruft to me that wouldn't pass GNG. The majority of them are clear candidates for merging/redirecting. Even Skaro should probably be merged into Dalek, as it appears large but is mostly fanwiki-esque WP:INUNIVERSE plot information._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any list still needs to pass WP:LISTN - this means that not just any list of items for which there are notable articles is itself notable. FOARP (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:FANCRUFT.Knox490 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2019 (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.