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 speedy keep. Closed per WP:SNOW: There is no indication at all that this discussion might have "delete" as its outcome. SoWhy 20:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colony in Space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Lacks reliable sources (all sources used are fansites), and so fails WP:N. Would fail WP:FICT as well - no meaningful real world perspective (there's a stab at it, but if you look it's not actually about this episode), and it is just another Doctor Who episode, wholly unimportant to understanding the larger series. Dearth of Rats (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's not an episode, it's a story that ran six episodes. Even individual episodes of TV series can be notable there are numerous examples on this site and this story set the standard for many things in the Dr Who series. Edward321 (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems a hair-splitting - whether it is an episode, a multi-episode serial, or a doughnut, it still does not have reliable sources, real-world perspective, or any evidence of its importance in understanding Doctor Who, which means that it fails both the relevant notability guideline and the proposal for a looser one. Dearth of Rats (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Grouping episodes together is a good way of handling them, (though this wasn't really clear in the introduction, if one did not read the entire article). I see reasonable amount of real world information--about the production the actors, and the reuse of the material in other formats--in fact, judging by screen space, its about 50% of the article; it's not a "stab at it', it's a good job of it. The plot however is as rmbling as plot sections ausually are, and could use some copyediting for conciseness, and to show where the different episodes end. I also see references to outside reviews of the series, though not in the conventional WP RSs. . I think more could be found--google News is getting progressively better for this. It meets all present and proposed requirements. Needsfurther editing, like 99% of Wikipedia articles. DGG (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep As per both of the above "Keep" votes. Proxy User (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Ditto. I don't see that Dearth of Rats' reasoning wouldn't knock most if not all articles on Who stories not set on "contemporary" or historical Earth out of the encyclopedia. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article definitely needs more sources, but it appears to be notable. Added {{refimprove}}.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  23:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep So the references used in this article are fansites... surely the nominator is not suggesting that it is impossible to find any published books which detail information about the episode. Every classic Doctor Who episode is covered in immense detail in a huge number of published works. That the editors of this article chose to use readily available online references (which should not necessarily be dismissed and derided as "fansites") does not mean that this article, and any article about Doctor Who stories, cannot be referenced to an acceptable standard of notability. --Canley (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nomination fails WP:BEFORE as there are numerous reliable sources for this episode and, in any case, there are good aternatives to deletion which have not been discussed on the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - hard to see where user is coming from. Sources are only fans sites? The official BBC website isn't a fansite. you've also got imdb's page as well. So there's pleanty of references for this and other doctor Who stories. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2009 (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.