Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Second special (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 Redirected.

2009 Second special (Doctor Who)

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

Contested CSD and prod. Also include

• Speedy delete due to total lack of any material to put in the article, and due to bad faith of creator who persisently adds unsourced info to Wikipedia and simply deletes PROD tags without any dialogue. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 13:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For above reasons.
  All Grown Up! Defender 16:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Just too early for the article... Fails
  notability. --Pmedema (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete existence isn't grounds for an article Sceptre ^(talk) 18:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Adequate information is in the serials article. Alientraveller (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  List_of_Doctor_Who_serials#Specials (2009) until we have more than 1 bit of information. Edgepedia (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'll second 23skidoo -- Redirect all and we can keep then on watchlist and revert any changes until there's real information - not likely until after Christmas. Delete and we will find them re-created in a month or two. Edgepedia (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all 3 to
  List_of_Doctor_Who_serials#Specials (2009) for now. The fact they're happening has been confirmed by several non-trivial sources, but at present there is simply too little information to go on, unlike the 2008 Christmas Special, which has substantial information. Once more concrete information is available, then the redirects can be easily converted back into articles. I can't comment as to the faith of the article creator, but I can vouch that there are multiple sources confirming these specials are happening. Redirecting is preferable to deleting because it'll discourage premature recreation. 23skidoo (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Very obvious redirect. What is the point of having an article when you don't have any material to put in it? AndyJones (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all. Zero that can be said about any of them at this time.Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Redirect. Until there are non-trivial sources, or a trailer, these articles fail
  WP:CRYSTAL. Hope to read these articles when we're closer to air date. -- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 03:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I've been bold and have redirected the articles. If this is premature I've no problem with any editor reverting them. --
  Deadly∀ssassin 11:23, 15 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.