Talk:Doctor Who

I was wondering, did someone just read the Conservapedia article a little uncritically? If you check the talk page, someone is questioning why the notoriously liberal Guardian is saying the BBC is promoting "relentless socialist propaganda" and thus it was removed from the CP article. Indeed, the only source for "relentless socialist propaganda" I can find comes from a comment on an Independent article that doesn't mention Doctor Who but is in reference to the BBC in general.

The moral of the story? We know most of Conservapedia is now written by parodists, so why use it as a legitimate source of material? Find a proper source for conservatives hating the programme for the reasons given, rather than just assuming they must because of x, y and z. 12:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Mission
This appears to fall under the category of "SciFi cruft that is too far outside the bounds of the mission" 04:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * True, dat. 04:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * All I can offer in support of the topic is that, while this isn't strictly a matter of mission, RW does have a lot about homosexuality and media and cultural responses to homosexuality. The new Doctor Who had more gay kissing and general homosexual references than pretty much anything that has aired on British television. Representing male-male relationships, showing the kisses, and making quite dirty references on what is sometimes claimed to be a children's show has brought its fair share of controversy. If people think it's worth having an article about, I'll certainly take it on, and make it discuss the series and the media response in more depth. Dalek (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do. As it is now, this article isn't worth keeping. -- Nx  / talk 06:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Although with reference to the section above, "it has lots of gay kissing therefore it must annoy conservatives" isn't good enough. If you can find a prominent blogger or Daily Fail columnist that is genuinely enraged by it then it's fine. Otherwise it's not worth having. 10:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If "it promotes gay-is-OK" is the best argument for a keep, perhaps it should be merged into a relevant homosexuality article? I love Doctor Who but really, in itself it's not on-mission. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm obviously very biased in favour of Doctor Who and won't pretend otherwise. If you guys would like, we could get rid of the article, and I'll add a section to the BBC article instead? Dalek (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly as it stands it does nothing for us.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless somebody objects in the next few hours, I guess I'll make this page a redirect to BBC#Doctor Who and then make the BBC section for the article good and snarky - certainly more than is in this article at the moment. 20:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Before I go ahead? 00:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead is fine by me. 02:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to submit your writing plan. 16:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this thing still here? Wow.  04:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I guess the Doctor was beaten by a Dalek after all. :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Article at its current state
the article is extremely short and lacks substantial content. You should consider working on a draft first before you create articles because if not worked on, we're gonna consider just deleting it because it's a hopelessly short stub article. 21:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, this is the first article I've ever made and I couldn't find a draft button Corruption assassin (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You can make a userspace subpage for it. like User:Corruption assassin/Doctor Who, and work on that there, copy and paste information when you're done. 00:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I copied it but I don't know how to make a subpage