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. czar 15:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stattenheim remote control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I don't see how this gadget from Dr. Who is in and of itself notable. Seems to have been created as part of a rather large number of page creations/redirects in order to cover every conceivable meaning of "remote control". Only source is a Wikia fan page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you like here, but let me first explain what I am doing. remote control is a stupidly ambiguous term, and , unsurprisingly, it is mislinked all over the place e.g. remote controled weapons platform, remote control bombs, remote control car etc etc. The page itself refers very specifically to consumer electronics. What seems far more sensible to me is to make remote control a {disamgiguation} page, and you rely on other redirects or phrases to get the right uses. 'TV remote', 'remote handset' etc etc. Fmadd (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In consumer electronics, a remote control is a component of an electronic device such as a television set, DVD player, or other home appliance, used to operate the device wirelessly from a short distance." -- see how problematic this is?????? it's FAR too specific. Theres' wired remotes . The article about teslas demonstration of a remote control boat points at this. And so on and so on. Fmadd (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of jabber that has exactly nothing to do with the subject under discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article is completely unnecessary. Already mentioned in the TARDIS article. Not enough content to warrant its own article. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. This is the metaphorical equivalent to changing a light bulb by buying a Hummer. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per User:Adamtt9. Flat Out (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Creation by a blocked user. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does that have to do with anything? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, redirect or delete should be the obvious result here. I just want to be clear that an article being created by a user who was subsequently blocked is no reason for deletion. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. He was not blocked when he created this article. Meters (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect, there's a redirect to an existing entry in List of Doctor Who items#Stattenheim remote control Ll928 (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted by a sock of User:Fmadd  Adamtt9 (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or at most redirect to the mention in List of Doctor Who items. This is part of a long string of remote control edits by a now-indeffed SPA. Meters (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, although probably mentioned in Dr Who encyclopaedias, would be of interest to hard core fans only ie. appears on a number of fansites online, is this the only episode (The Two Doctors) it is in? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oops, i see its mentioned elsewhere in the Whoiverse, but not enough for a standalone article.Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2017 (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.