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 no consensus‎. As a procedural note, Pokelego999, you can withdraw your nomination at any point in the process (by either clearly stating so, with or without a bolded "withdraw", ~~striking out~~ your original nomination statement, or preferably both) however the AfD is not generally closed unless there are no suggested actions other than keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Rani (Doctor Who)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

While a generally notable recurring villain in the context of the show, I can't find much for the Rani that isn't just speculation about future returns or recaps of plot summaries. I found a few book sources, but they all just seem to mention her in passing, and in terms of Google News, I found these. https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/cult/a401680/doctor-who-steven-moffat-rules-out-return-for-villain-the-rani/ https://metro.co.uk/2014/03/31/doctor-who-kate-omara-was-great-as-the-rani-shame-about-the-scripts-4683650/ https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/bring-back-the-rani-52364.htm The first describes Steven Moffat discussing why the character wouldn't return under his tenure, which while good for behind the scenes information, isn't worth much else. The second source praises O'Mara's performance as the character, and the third discusses the Rani in depth substantially, but as the site is entirely DW related, I'm not sure how valuable it would be as one of the two big sources in an article. I also found a few obituaries for the actress mentioning her role as the Rani, but from what I can tell, they don't go too in depth on the character beyond that. There just doesn't seem to be enough SIGCOV to justify this article's existence. I do believe sources may exist out there for the character, given that she's one of the more notable female antagonists in the series' run and is popular with fans, but I just can't find enough sources to back that up. If anyone finds any sources discussing her in depth in a search that I may have missed, then that might help the article's case, but as it stands, there just doesn't seem to be enough for the article to work with. A possible AtD could be the Villains list, but I'm not terribly sure myself if that's the best alternative or not. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2023 (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. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or redirect per WP:ATD. WP:BEFORE didn't find enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I make a good faith attempt to improve the article (see below) ~~Merge/Redirect~~, but where? This is a notable Doctor Who character and I'm a bit surprised about the lack of coverage, but then again we seem to have this problem often for pre-internet pop culture. Will other character articles from ((Doctor Who villains)), which are in similar or worse shape, be AfDed as well? List of Doctor Who villains is a pretty sad list at the moment but could be reformatted and expanded to accommodate merged entries from this article and Beep the Meep, Celestial Toymaker, Rassilon, Valeyard, etc.— TAnthony^Talk 16:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely dislike the current villains list, and do feel it needs some improvement. I'd go and do it myself, but I've been so busy recently that I don't have the time to make necessary changes to the article. In any case, I feel it's the best alternative to deletion we have, given the fact that neither of her stories (Time and the Rani and Mark of the Rani) feel like proper targets, and all other potential targets feel iffy at best. I'm still genuinely surprised about the lack of coverage myself, but I'm hoping someone might find something before the end of this AfD discussion.

As for your question about future AfDs, I'll probably end up looking through some of the iffier entries there, namely Omega, the Valeyard, and Rassilon, at some point in the future. I believe there may be coverage out there, but I won't know until I do a check. I'm holding off on Beep just in case the 60th Anniversary Specials yield any good coverage, as there may be a good shot there. In any case, I'm holding off on these reviews until the AfDs for fictional elements clear up a little, because there have been so many article floods recently that I feel they'll probably get missed. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on this article in draft space, it seems like this AfD will be relisted but I'm traveling for work next week and would like a grace period on this to see what I can do. Also, I've been looking at other Doctor Who character articles and lists, and many/most are woefully undersourced and plot-heavy/crufty (huge unsourced paragraphs on the Doctor's costumes?). Anyway, it seems like the Rani has been singled out unnecessarily, but even so there shouldn't be a rush to eliminate this article. Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 15:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's always good to see people working to improve the DW Articles, because as you said, there are a lot of places that need improvement. In any case, though, I'm not quite sure I can withdraw the nomination at this point in time, and I'm uncertain if there's any other method of obtaining a "grace period." I'm not too well versed when it comes to this part of the AfDs, unfortunately. Pokelego999 (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Any feasible Merge/Redirect target article come to mind?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can be convinced to redirect to List of Doctor Who villains. Expansion and improvement of that list could happen through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article in draftspace, and just now added my improvements to date (about half of the article) to the mainspace article. I've found some great sources. The article is now clearly a keep, and will be even more so as I add more citations and sourced sections in the coming days. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 14:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits, I missed a couple of the sources you used myself. I'm satisfied enough that I'm fine with the article staying, but I don't believe I can withdraw now given how long it's been. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2023 (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.