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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. But I'd like to make two comments in this closure. "Fancruft" gets used a lot in AFD nominations but according to WP:FANCRUFT, which is an essay not a guideline, it can be seen as pejorative comment and is not grounds for deletion.

Secondly, I sense a perception that Doctor Who articles are somehow protected by the relevant WikiProject but as a regular AFD closer, there were dozens and dozens of DW-related articles nominated in 2023, some for companions, and they almost all closed as "Delete" even though the WIkiProject was notified of the discussions. I remember one day when about 50 Doctor Who articles were all nominated for deletion and we had to ask for renomination of some because it was just too many articles for editors to evaluate in a week. So, there was a big clearing of the project of many less important articles on the TV series and books. I'm sure even more could be done, especially merging content but I just want to say that nominating a Doctor Who article is far from an automatic Keep decision. That's all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Companion (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Primarily fancruft. Though this article is extensively footnoted, a closer look reveals the sources as officially licensed, in-universe material with few to no RS, thus failing SIGCOV. In addition, each companion has their own standalone article, making this a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. (Whether each companion deserves their own article under WP:NOPAGE is another discussion, which may well become part of this one.) My attempts to rectify the problems of this article have been reverted, with discussion stonewalled and talk page comments censored. It's possible the individual Companion articles could be merged into this one and/or turned into a WP:LIST. Either way, something needs to be done and I haven't made any progress on my own, so here we are. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Your concerns about this article are valid, but it's a highly notable topic. A move to List of Doctor Who companions or similar may be appropriate, and further improvements would certainly be welcome, but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Also note that some companions do not have their own articles, with some such as Katarina (Doctor Who) deleted in recent months as they're not independently notable. That move arguably gives this article more purpose. U-Mos (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As has been said above (and numerous times in previous discussions, both in the talk page and Dispute Resolution), your concerns are valid and there are definite issues with the article. But it is a notable article and deletion is not the way. There have been numerous requests for suggestions on how to improve the article with constructive edits, but by and large the suggestions that have been provided call only for deletion, whether of content or the article as a whole. Your opinion not being agreed with is not the same as being "stonewalled". The outcome of the DRN was for the filing editor to post these concerns in either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction, and then potentially to file a Request for Comments in order to discuss and to get opinions from the community on what is needed to be deleted, changed, reworded, better sourced, etc. As far as I can see - and please do correct me if I'm wrong - this has not been done. Could it be clarified why the filing editor has escalated to AfD before going through the measures suggested by a moderator after extensive discussion and feedback from multiple editors? Irltoad (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Just Another Cringy Username I would also be curious as to your answer to the above final question. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Glad to answer. As I've said from the beginning of this whole kerfuffle, most of the issues with this article result from its having been written "by fans, for fans," as the saying goes. (I'm guessing it's a holdover from an earlier iteration of WP where notability standards were looser and WP was explicitly pop culture-focused.) If you go to the Dr. Who project, all you'll get will be more Dr. Who fans. Bringing it to AfD and raising the issues of standalone notability, duplicative material, etc. will get more eyeballs on this article and hopefully bring forward a much broader consensus. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So, when advised to not go for the deletionist point of view, you decided that instead of discussing it further, you'd go for the deletionist point of view once more. Unfortunately this hasn't seemed to work for you, since there is a clear consensus forming here. Is there a reason why you have not attempted to improve on the article at all? -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've made several attempts, all of which got reverted in short order, which is why we're here.

  And I don't think there's any doubt about my being an unabashed deletionist. It's right there on my userpage for all to see. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Simply an admittance to the desire to not improve articles. It's clear the majority of editors are against that opinion here. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Having trouble collaborating with other editors is not grounds for deletion. Current state of the article is also not grounds, as deletion is not cleanup. The thing that matters at AfD is whether sources exist that talk about the subject of the article, specifically and in detail (see WP:NEXIST). There are certainly sources that discuss the role of the companion on Doctor Who — for an entire book on the subject, see Who Travels with the Doctor? Essays on the Companions of Doctor Who (McFarland, 2016). Toughpigs (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per above. My argument echoes those of above editors. There are significant sources that discuss this topic in depth just from a simple search, and the current state of the article is not grounds for deletion, as AfD is not cleanup. This article needs substantial work, yes, but the article should be improved by other editors instead of deleted. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep No valid policy has been quoted to supports its deletion; this editor's issue with the article are over their own conduct, not the content. No attempt at a civil discussion has been attempted. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/Merge I don't agree that a content fork can be fixed by the mere existence of sources. But that doesn't necessarily mean editing, either. If there isn't support for a merge here, I would at least agree with User:U-Mos that a move to List of Doctor Who companions would clarify the scope. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given that there's already a List of Doctor Who companions article, this appears more redundant than ever. Anyone want to discuss merging as an AtD? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That link is just a redirect to the Companion page that we're talking about. Toughpigs (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What exactly are you intending to merge? Can you explain how you'd merge an article with a redirect? What about the redirect makes this article redundant? Or did you not actually view the article you linked? -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep See previous discussion(s). Again, it can be improved. So, improve it. I've tried to be nice about this, but here's the bottom line: quit *whining* about it and do the work to improve it if you're serious. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 03:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've done the work. You just didn't like what I did. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Take a look at the difference between recent edits (careful deletion of unnecessary detail, along with justifications for such) and the ones which sparked this discussion (sweeping removal of entire sections due to "Excessive detail"). Evidently, the consensus here is that there is excessive detail and fancruft in the article, but that there is also plenty of encyclopaedic value that warrants more care than that. No one would take issue if you looked for sources where they are needed and only deleted content that genuinely contravenes WP:NOR or WP:NOT. At no point have you actually attempted to fix the problem. If there is excessive detail, you could remove the detail instead of the entire section. Irltoad (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The entire section is excessive detail. It's in-universe and sourced from the show itself. Moreover, the same information is duplicated in each companion's individual article. This should be a general interest article about the concept of the Companion as a whole with an emphasis on real-world discussion, not just a reiteration of Dr. Who lore. As my tag suggests, what's there now may be of great interest to fans of the show, but we're not here for them. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I echo Irltoad here. These sections are very iffy and fall under excessive detail, but you've made no effort to improve the article. You deleted swathes of information and put in nothing of substance that actually would improve it, arguably leaving it worse off than it was before. No one would have said anything if you had axed those sections but instead replaced it with paragraphs of Reception or Analysis of the role of Companions in the show, all properly sourced and cited. Your edits provided no benefit, and you then took it to AfD solely because you had a disagreement with other editors about this. These are consistently bad faith actions. I respect your effort to try and improve a middling article, but your efforts right now have proven disruptive, and I'd suggest taking the advice of other editors on what to do when it comes to improving it in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If all the time spent complaining about the article actually equalled actions to improve it, the article would be a lot better already. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 23:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All I see is WP:DEADHORSE and WP:NOTHERE. JACU, you have no consensus here, your arguments have no support. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Highly significant and obviously meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2024 (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.