Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special

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, per overwhelming consensus, before this gets to DW crazed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been moved to The Next Doctor. So Why 13:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It exists, but there is no source information apart from a 15 second trailer. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay because we all know its going to happen. Goku1st ^(talk) 23:03, 5 July 2008 (GMT)

Yeah, just like we know the year 2347 is going to happen. Srsly, how do we know it's going to happen? Have you been looking into your WP:CRYSTAL ball? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What on Earth is your problem? Anyway, production has already been completed. It's been scheduled. It already exists. It simply hasn't been broadcast yet. --Aderack (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If for some reason it didn't happen ,that very fact would fact it notable ,eg The Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special was never broadcast due to .....' Gnevin (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think, as with other articles which had few information (like future Bond movies), it has always been common policy to allow temporary articles with few information so they can be linked to, expanded once information arises and allow people to easily gather the information already available. In this case, we have a couple of major points already, even if the only source is a 15-seconds trailer: We know the main character (the Doctor), we have two notable guest stars, we know a approximate air date and a major plot point. -- SoWhy ^Talk 22:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only source is a trailer that not a lot of people have seen. Those of us who haven't seen the trailer can't find a thing about this film. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Film? Are you familiar with this subject matter, Hammer? Tphi (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently not, or he'd realise that between 8 and 10 million Britons saw the trailer at the end of the last episode of Doctor Who. (Ratings pending, based on preliminary estimates.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be available to everyone. It can be verified easily by asking a UK based editor to view the trailer. WP:CRYSTAL is not the case as this is indeed confirmed. WP:V does not say that the source has to be easily accessible by everyone, else old books for example couldn't be used as sources. -- SoWhy ^Talk 22:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal ball says it should be deleted and recreate when it is aired. -- SYSS Mouse (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Articles for episodes and movies yet to air are perfectly acceptable. WP:CRYSTAL just says that unsourced and unconfirmed things should not be added - this is neither. -- SoWhy ^Talk 22:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - To quote WP:CRYSTAL "Scheduled or expected future events should be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."... production has been completed on this episode as evidenced by the sources... therefore it is almost certain to take place. Why do people always quote CRYSTAL without having actually read it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL says that it's okay to have future events providing there is significant coverage by secondary sources. Elections are a good example. A trailer is not a sufficiently reliable/verifiable/source, and in the absence of further coverage, I suggest this is recreated nearer the time. Fails WP:CRYSTAL for that reason. -- PeterSymonds (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many sources have been added since you wrote this. How does it look now?--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you can have an article called "Bond 22" for a year, then I see no harm in this. Also, its confirmed that the episode will happen! I mean, come on! It's already been filmed and was advertised at the end of the series 4 finale... All Grown Up! Defender 23:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Um.. I don't do this much so I'm not sure if I am editing correctly, however there is an article about this episode at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-561218/David-Morrissey-star-Doctor-Who-Christmas-special-featuring-deadly-Cybermen.html so there is a second source on this episode's existence. -- KaitlynRoss (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, since thats a strong source, I've added it to the article. Nice work finding it! All Grown Up! Defender 23:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This falls in the "virtual certain to occur" category for me. In addition, the trailer is not the only source of information. The Daily Mail, Hello Magazine, Liverpool Echo. Such sources don't give much information, but the idea that there will be a Christmas episode and some of who is involved seems beyond reproach. -- Dragons flight (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We know that is going to happen as we've got reliable sources from trailers and articles on the internet. Also what would be wrong with preparing an article? -- OpinionPerson (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "Bond 22"/Quantum of Solace article might have been created long before the film's release, but there must surely have been adequate sources of information to justify its presence on Wikipedia, albeit unnamed and with some details yet to be confirmed. As a feature-length motion picture, it is bound to have a lot more coverage. What we're dealing with right here, right now is a single episode of a TV series, currently without a solid, known title, whose article contains barely any information (furthermore, most of what is there at the moment is either repetitive or unsourced speculation). It also seems dubious to rely on a source such as the tabloid Daily Mail, which is normally not be trusted too faithfully. Yes, we know that there will be a Christmas special, and that it will feature the Cybermen, but does this article really have to be made so soon? I say wait for future news from reliable sources (BBC, DWM etc.) before acting too rashly. -- SuperMarioMan (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the episode has been filmed and will air so if we delete it now we’re just going to have to recreate it later. Information is slowly beginning to emerge and we need somewhere to put this information as it does. Also it’s useful to have a place for other articles to link to for this. -- Mutt (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least provisionally. The trailer is as reliable a source as we can have that the episode will air, the Crystal Ball rule clearly allows articles about things that will happen within the forseeable future, and we know some things about it: not many, perhaps, but enough to enough to make the article worthwhile. The article can always be replaced when we know more. -- And Introducing... A Leg (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the episode is known to exist and has been advertised (via the trailer), and has received coverage in an additional source as described above. -- DavidK93 (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Episode is known to exist, article is not a perma-stub. I'm sure you can find two independent sources for it. In a case like this where it's something we will obviously have an article on and there is no doubt that it is going to happen we may as well keep the article and let it develop. -- Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Though the title (or lack thereof) bothers me, it is quite verifiable. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CRYSTAL. As with other Doctor Who episodes, this would be considered notable (Dragons Flight has provided secondary coverage in addition). The only question is whether the show will take place. Just as presumably we'll see the 2016 elections, I think that we'll also end up seeing this in Christmas 2008. -- Fraud ^{talk to me} 03:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NFF through production status being substantially complete. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple verifiable sources, main production is complete and post-production is under way. Some feature films will get a smaller audience than this special can expect; we will have eyes on this article. -- Radagast (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't even remotely meet the guidelines for speedy deletion. There has been a trailer and there is information available through other sources. The title isn't available yet, but there needs to be an article on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leilaht (talk • contribs) 04:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Filming is complete, the airing is certain, and the material is verifiable. When the special's title is revealed, this page will be moved to it; eventually, it will be as developed as the pages on past Doctor Who Christmas specials. — Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, certainly notable, already has plenty of discussion in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Virtually certain not only to occur, but also be covered in an increasing number of reliable sources. In addition, the subject is "... of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." (WP:CRYSTAL) -- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 07:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for most of the reasons already cited. That this AfD exists at all is ridiculous. -- Davidkevin (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reason being that its going to be created anyway so there is no point fussing. And can I add im pretty certain the xmas episode name is return of the cybermen. --Sotonfc4life (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, episode has been filmed and obviously exists. Jonesy702 (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Keep! As has been stated above, this episode has already been filmed and will be shown at Christmas. The very suggestion of deletion is insane.Blaine Coughlan (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The villain, air time, guest stars and the Doctor are confirmed... how many people may have seen the trailer, or that Ten Pound Hammer hasn't seen it, is irrelevant, it is verifiable and was seen on the BBC by millions. The article contains other printed sources, and interest in the episode will be high. Certainly not in the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL which does not apply here, there is no speculative information therein. --Canley (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 9.4 million people watched Journey's End, so 9.4 million people know about this Christmas episode. Not notable enough? Seriphyn (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Will only get better as more information comes outGnevin (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep even thou the name is not given for this episode, it is confirmed via a trailer that there is a special and 4 specials will happen between 2008 - 2009 on the bbc website [[Ucebaggie (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Delete Fails WP:FUTURE and WP:NOTABILITY. Seriously people, I see so many "keeps per WP:CRYSTAL" it is insane. The article contains no information partaining to the epiosde itself, is filled with non-information that the name has not been revealed yet, and lacks any sort of reliable sources; most information is coming from tabloids. The information that is available only relates to the production, which is best suited in List of Doctor Who serials. There is just too little information and notability to sustain a seperate article for now. "It exists" is not reason enough to have an article. Article creation should be suspended until we at least have a title, and we have enough sourceble information. — Edokter • Talk • 13:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It discusses a few names of people who star in it plus it says who the villianis are and what time of year the episode will generally air. It's a stub... it will be expanded as more information becomes available... according to Wikipedia:Stub the articele "should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it". There is definetly enough info here for somebody to expand upon it once that information becomes available. WP:FUTURE goes to the same place as WP:CRYSTAL so I don't get your distinction between the two. As for Notability, this page is just as notable as any other Dr. Who episode page on wikipedia.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is only notable if there are published sources. Right now, there are very, very few, and the article is attracting only speculation and original research. — Edokter • Talk • 22:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article has confirmed information (Cybermen, what actors, release date) and if it attracts too much speculation and OR it can be semi-protected until the episode airs.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 23:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You say there are very few sources. One respectable published source is enough.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The relevant guideline is WP:NFF. Satisfies that guideline, for me. Principal photography has clearly commenced, obviously notable subject, enough reliably sourced material to have some meaningful content in the article. AndyJones (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too little info at the moment. U-Mos (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And a comfortable keep at that - although I do agree it should be fleshed out as soon as possible. I imagine there'll be a few more details released in the next week or so. Starfighter Pilot (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although there's a not a lot of info at the moment, there should be more announcements before too long. True, we could delete it until then, but is it really worth deleting it just to reopen it after such little time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proonography (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More to come very soon. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 17:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this article is on a fictional subject, and is in the future, the sources that have been added, specifically this one and this one convince me that this article should be kept. I note the previous delete votes, but also note that further sources have been added since then, which are independent of the trailer. Steve Crossin (contact) 17:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 19:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would WP:SNOW apply yet? — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are now five references, including (some of?) the guest stars and location. Edgepedia (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To quote WP:CRYSTAL "Scheduled or expected future events should be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."... production has been completed on this episode as evidenced by the sources... therefore it is almost certain to take place. Why do people always quote CRYSTAL without having actually read it. It is also acuratly marked as a stub and will be further expanded when more info becomes available. Otherwise... all stubs should be deleted due to small content... this idea that an artilce can't exist simply because a title hasn't been released is really getting ridiculous.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, as Sceptre has earned my support in WP:WHO matters. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added another source for those who distrust the Daily Mail. Alastairward (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, i see no problem keeping this artical for now, last year the bbc website released a good deal of information for us to create the voyage of the damned article, although the cybermen of wikipedia will probably still find this article unworthy and will delete it!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability is asserted through the millions of viewers who saw the trailer. Crystal does not apply as all info is sourced. --Cameron * 08:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Confirmed production, completed and promoted by the BBC and multiple non-trivial sources. Will be renamed once the BBC announces the title. No WP:CRYSTAL issue at all. This is no different than us having an article called Bond 22 for a year before the title Quantum of Solace was announced because it is a confirmed production for an undeniably major entertainment franchise. if this is deleted then Star Trek (film) would have to be deleted as well. Definitely looks like a WP:SNOW scenario to me right now. 23skidoo (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2008 (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.