Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Tyler

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 01:05, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Pete Tyler

Pure fancruft. A character who only appears in one episode of a long-running TV series. Miss Pippa 17:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My normal preference is to merge minor or one-time characters, but this article is big enough that merging would be difficult. It even has a picture! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
- The fact that it's too big to move proves that the article is fancruft according to the official definition: "too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole." Miss Pippa 18:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid, useful and interesting to fans. It seems to me that this is article is a perfectly appropriate size, given the subject. Someone cared enough to post this, others collaborated to make it into the well written article we're reviewing in under three days; its self-evident that there's an interest for it! VfD should be used only as a last resort. Useful, coherent, well written and organized data belongs here. --Unfocused 18:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As you say: " Valid, useful and interesting to fans." To fans. From the official definition of fancruft: "it is of minimal interest to non-fans." Miss Pippa 18:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not a valid reason for deletion. The page you point to is not official policy, but opinion. From the same: "Whether it is beneficial or detrimental to an encyclopedia to describe a work of fiction in complete detail when there are no such critical views to report on is still very much an open question." --Unfocused 18:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is nothing more than cruft. C W Merchant 18:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fancruft definition could apply to any number of Shakespeare articles out there, too. Wikipedia is not paper 23skidoo 18:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I love Dr Who, but comparing it to Shakespeare is really quite rich. Quale 22:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over the top but harmless. Oliver Chettle 19:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doctor Who or List of one-time characters in Doctor Who, per WP:FICT. Appearing in a single episode of a TV series would not be very encyclopedic had his role not disrupted SPACE AND TIME AS WE KNOW IT!, causing temporal-disruption cleaner-uppers to come devour anachronistic things, etc. Fortunately, these effects were only in fiction. Barno 19:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the one who expanded it. If it were up to me, I would not have created the article in the first place, but someone else did, so rather than go through the agony of proposing a vfd I decided the next best thing was to expand it to at least a semi-decent standard, and that's just what I did. I'll leave it up to others to decide if it should stay or not, but I do agree that he's a minor character. --khaosworks 19:44, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Unfocused. Kappa 20:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft. Quale 21:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything below the Spoiler Warning is a retelling of the episode itself, making all of the information redundant. The opening paragraph may be re-used or merged with a list of minor supporting characters, but the overall article should be deleted. Ravenswood 22:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No harm in keeping; adds to information about a popular, long-running TV show. Moncrief 22:19, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fancruft. Maybe merge the opening with another article. --Carnildo 23:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid well written article. Megan1967 04:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but delete spoiler element, as will/should be in ep.listing entry. The back-stories of the Doctor's companions are often used as plot-hooks in future episodes & therefore, within the milieu, are going to have significance. --Simon Cursitor 07:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, whocraft. Martg76 08:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge WP:FICT. R adiant _* 14:30, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, valid article
Keep he is the major charcater of that story, just edging him over the dividing line into article-worthiness --TimPope 06:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.