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 (or merge, which is an editorial decision). Sandstein 16:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who henchmen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The idea of listing all henchman in the series is a bit ridiculous. These are insufficiently developed characters who the majority of would not warrant placement on even the various "minor characters" lists. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and any characters such as perhaps "Novice Hame" can find placement on the List of Doctor Who villains. May I also point out, that the entirety these minor characters' histories and characterizations are typically covered in the episode articles for which they appear ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge any notable characters into List of Doctor Who villains. Looks like an attempt to replicate the idea of List of James Bond henchmen, however in Doctor Who there have rarely been clearly defined "henchmen". Characters are villains or closely associated with villains, but aside from, say, Tobias Vaughn's henchman in The Invasion and a few others, there haven't been that many "henchmen". 23skidoo 19:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per 23skidoo Percy Snoodle 12:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per 23skidoo, but also give Novice Hame her own article as she is as notable as Jake Simmonds and Lady Cassandra who both have their own articles. --GracieLizzie 21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She now does.Lizzie Harrison 16:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The intention of this page was indeed to serve partially as a similar page for Doctor Who as the List of James Bond henchmen does for James Bond. I believe its presence is justified as some of the henchmen listed have more screen time than the main villains listed on the List of Doctor Who villains. Merging with the villains page is not feasible as there are already concerns over the length of that page and this page was designed to serve to alleviate pressure on that page, serving as an overflow. It is not my opinion that all of these characters are 'insufficiently developed' by their respective scriptwriters. Furthermore, they appear in canonical, televised stories, as oppose to those appearing on the List of companions in Doctor Who spin-offs, for example. The closest Doctor Who has to a 'minor characters' list is the List of supporting characters in Doctor Who, which merely links to the other lists, (Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures both have minor character lists). Also, it is not my experience that the entirety of most of these characters' 'histories and characteri[s]ations' are in fact included in the articles for their parent stories. As for the use of the term 'henchmen', which has been challenged, I would be in favour of moving the page to something along the lines of 'List of Doctor Who henchmen and villainous associates'. As for Novice Hame - she was not either of the main villains in New Earth - she served Matron Casp, (the other villain being Lady Cassandra), as part of the Sisterhood, so is a henchmen as Chip was for Cassandra and in Gridlock, she seeks to redeem herself and is neither villain nor henchmen, so the suggestion that she be listed as a villain seems flawed. If anything, I agree with GracieLizzie on the point of Novice Hame, although I think it better to list characters in a similar style to Smallville characters Season One, rather than create a new page for each recurring character. Obviously, from the response to Zythe's proposal, it seems that others do not agree with my viewpoint. However, I see no harm in this collection of information, which is, I would argue, gathered around a coherent theme. That is my stance on the situation, seeing as Wikipedia asked me for it. Wolf of Fenric 03:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my earlier points, I would argue that this list is far less trivial than lists such as the List of Doctor Who items. The henchmen list notes characters played by actors - some of these actors make public appearances owing to having appeared in Doctor Who. Some of these characters appear in merchandise, such as on trading cards. If the Doctor's opera glasses or the Sash of Rassilon have a place on Wikipedia, I am sure there is room for a list of walking, talking henchmen. Wolf of Fenric 03:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last point for now, I fail to see under which part of 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information' Zythe is arguing this article qualifies. Having read through this section which he has linked to, I cannot see how this article fits the criteria for deletion listed there. Wolf of Fenric 04:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're just henchman and the entirety of their characterization exists within the episode articles.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned before, having looked through the articles for the stories from which these characters originate, in my opinion, their entire characterisations are not given universally. Under the 9 guidelines listed at Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, to which Zythe links, I can see nothing to warrant the deletion of this article. Indeed, this list appears to challenge 'Plot summaries' above and beyond lists. Zythe appears to argue that the information provided by this article is contained within the plot summaries, (as stated, not my experience), provided on Doctor Who story articles. Seeing as the guidelines state that 'plot summar[ies] may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic' which those on the Doctor Who articles seek to be, surely it is best not to cloud these with details of characters' characterisation, arguably best contained here. Furthermore, in line with the directive 'Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context', I have sought to add detail on previous and/or further appearances the actors playing these characters have made in Doctor Who. Wolf of Fenric 20:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was going to say merge, but looking through the list, I'm not seeing much information there that doesn't already exist in the episode articles, and I don't see any characters notable enough to merge into the villains list. (I can see something more being done with Novice Hame, maybe, but that's about it.) While I can imagine a casual reader might be looking for a list of villains or monsters, I can't really imagine someone searching for Doctor Who henchmen. "Henchmen" isn't really a concept that's particularly integral to Doctor Who. --Brian Olsen 23:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are definite 'henchmen' roles in Dr Who, as opposed to 'villains' or 'monsters' and as it's a sci fi show that's run for nearly 45 years now there's more than enough content to justify it as it gets expanded over, er, time. The concept of the henchman isn't integral to Dr. Who but it is important, with henchmen of the main villain/monster reflecting the role the assistants played with the Doctor. There's lots of potential here and it shouldn't be summarily deleted. Nick mallory 04:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Exactly whose henchmen are these supposed to be? Surely it can't be that they're meant to be the Doctor's, in which case the title is misleading. BTLizard 10:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Henchmen in Doctor Who' would be better. Doctor Who is the programme's name. The Doctor is the character's name. The Doctor is hardly ever referred to as 'Doctor Who' in Doctor Who. Hope that clarifies things.... Nick mallory 10:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little, but not much. The problem is that in any narrative structure, henchmen are always defined by their relationship to a principal, so simply describing someone as "a henchman" makes no sense. What about something like "Villains' henchmen in Doctor Who"? BTLizard 10:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's good. Sometimes it's a monster's henchmen too though, and they're different from villains. A villain is usually a human up to no good, whereas the monsters are often not evil as such, merely bent on conquest or even just survival. They use humans as their henchmen, with the henchmen being motivated by greed or occasionally cowardice. Monster's and villain's henchmen in Doctor Who? Nick mallory 11:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to be picky, but watch the apostrophes :-) Monsters' and villains' henchmen in Doctor Who would do nicely BTLizard 11:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, I'd be in favour of moving the article to a new title - something like 'List of henchmen and villainous associates in Doctor Who' or an agreed variation. 'List of Doctor Who henchmen' was chosen to conform to the trend set by the List of Doctor Who villains, the List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens, the List of Doctor Who robots and the List of Doctor Who items. Wolf of Fenric 13:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or keep as above. — RJH (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pretty lengthy to merge. I think this length makes for a good fork of encyclopedic info from Villain article. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is why it doesn't deserve to exist independently at all. Henchmen are not villains. James Bond henchmen get 3 hours of screen time and characterization, there's a big difference there.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I'm persuaded this is of sufficient expandability and differentiation from the villain article to stand on its own. I also don't see the problem with "Doctor Who henchmen", personally. Why give the article a mouthful of a title to ward off a small and brief bit of confusion for a few? We have List of James Bond henchmen, and I don't think anyone would think that it's a list of henchmen of 007. --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't need to exist. This is a clear case of WP:ILIKEIT.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable topic, too much to make viable merge (merging is also an editorial decision). Matthew 08:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would argue it is not notable and 99% of it does not require merging into the villains article at all. Novice Hame, for instance, can receive minor mention under "Sisters of Plenitude" and the rest can vanish.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Matthew, Dhartung, Nick mallory. - Peregrine Fisher 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am afraid that without the continued existence of this page, things will unintentionally be worse: very minor characters such as Novice Hame now have their own page, whereas they should all appear together on one list (if at all). nadav 16:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They don't deserve to be noted separately from the episode articles if they are too minor! Sufficient exansion of recurrence means they can be placed on one of the many other lists. For example, Pig Slaves belong in monsters and aliens, not henchmen. The fact that making the call on who is a villain, who is a monster and who is a henchman is pretty subjective. Just rename "List of Doctor Who villains" to "List of Doctor Who antagonists" - problem solved. This is not about votes, this is simply that the List of Doctor Who henchman cannot function effectively and will in the long run only prove problematic and disruptive to the organisation of minor characters. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wolf of Fenric. AndyJones 19:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Although his points are contested. Why should a List of Doctor Who henchmen matter? It's just clutter. The characters are minor and summarised in the articles for the episodes in which they appear.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see his points are contested. I agree with him. AndyJones 17:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:There are a lot of them, and they should e documented. The other alternative would be giving them their own pages which would be ridiculous. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 08:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the alternative would be not listing them at all because they are not notable. I hope whichever admin reads this can make a decision based upon the logical points put forward and not simply the favoring that if a character appears, they must be listed somewhere, which is nonsensical. If this survives AfD, it would definitely set that precedent.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Zythe's point ignores the fact that most of the characters are not detailed in any great extent on their story pages in the plot sections - the plot sections being for plots, not character descriptions. Individually, no these characters are not, on the whole, notable - as a collective, (this list), they are. Villains tend to have henchmen. Doctor Who has villains. Therefore, Doctor Who has henchmen. This list is a good way to group them. Wolf of Fenric 17:04, 27 April 2007 (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.