From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Science fiction or fantasy. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Science fiction and fantasy|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Science fiction or fantasy.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Related deletion sorting

Science fiction and fantasy

Fantasy Amateur Press Association

Fantasy Amateur Press Association (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a major lack of sources for verification. Ktkvtsh ( talk) 21:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Ktkvtsh ( talk) 21:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep as no coherent policy-based deletion rationale articulated, see NEXIST. Many sources such as this readily available in Google Scholar which even in snippet/preview view substantiate the bare facts of the organization as stated in the article. This is transparently a real, venerable, and notable science fiction society that's been commented upon in the academic press: precisely the sort of think Wikipedia should cover. Jclemens ( talk) 22:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: In addition to Jclemens' source, there are several pages about the organization in The Immortal Storm: A History of Science Fiction Fandom, published in 1954. I also found a 1944 newspaper article from the Ontario Expositor about the American and Canadian branches of the organization: " Fiction Stranger Than Truth, State Fans of Fantasy". Toughpigs ( talk) 22:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The major problem with this page is that it lacks inline references, which someone has decided consitutes a reason for deletion. It just needs work. This page details an important part of the science fiction fannish world and, as such, needs to be retained. Perry Middlemiss ( talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Baalveer 3

Baalveer 3 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The series might be notable but not the seasons. None of the seasons is found passing WP:GNG. At present, Ref 1 is about the actor (Dev Joshi), Ref 2 covers trivial, Ref 3 redirects to Mid-Day about actors, Ref 4 is announcement and interview, Ref 5 is interview, Ref 6 is same as 5, Ref 7 press release, Ref 8 is interview about the actors. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 14:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Fantastic Beasts characters

List of Fantastic Beasts characters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are two big issues: Firstly, there's no citations outside of the one character that already has his own page, Newt Scamander. Secondly, this is for a three-film series - so not really a huge body of work - and, outside of the main four or five characters, there's one or two sentences for each person. Worse, the articles on the films have cast lists with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters, so it's redundant as well (The main characters' longer bits just being the plot summaries of the films). Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 23:27, 23 May 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 Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:CSC #2, no argument for deletion made that cannot be remedied by editing. Jclemens ( talk) 04:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don't think it rises to the level of notability where it can ever be sourced. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • These articles a little weird if we are trying to go by consistency. List of Harry Potter characters exists, but that is for characters who appeared in any of the books, which a lot of these do not and are not mentioned in that article. There is also List of Fantastic Beasts cast members which compliments List of Harry Potter cast members (a featured list.) Maybe it might be beneficial to merge the two Fantastic Beasts articles since the cast members one is well sourced, while this one is not. Aspects ( talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'm not objecting to Fantastic Beasts having multiple articles, but the number of secondary articles on it seems vastly out of line with the material. Fantastic Beasts (film series) and the three film articles are sensible enough, Newt Scamander seems to have enough independant coverage - and crossover content between various things - that it's justified, but when you get to a list of the characters, and a cast list as a table without any context, it feels both redundant and weird. It feels like the cast list should be at the end of the article on the series, and the character list... well... it's really hard to see why that exists at all if this article the most we can come up with, and I don't think anything in it isn't in the cast sections of the articles for each film; indeed, I think those may be doing a slightly better job.
Harry Potter isn't a good guide to what should exist here, as that was a much, much bigger phenomenon than its spinoff, and, as a book series, had both a lot more characters than could plausibly fit in a plot summary and a lot more development and recurrence of minor characters (and Rowling talked a lot more about the development of those characters in interviews). Films just don't have the depth of books, and, if there's material about secondary characters that got left out of the films, as far as I'm aware, it's not reported on.
And, of course, Harry Potter in particular had a lot more secondary sources that went into detail about every character; Fantastic Beasts doesn't have anything like that depth of coverage. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Space Marines (film)

Space Marines (film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The film is not notable in the sense that there are not multiple reliable sources having significant coverage about this topic. There is a review by The Washington Post here but nothing beyond that that I could find. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 19:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Pinging already-involved editors Govvy, Atlantic306, and Mushy Yank. I had proposed deletion but Mushy Yank contested it on account of the review by The Washington Post. Started this AfD to see this through fully. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 19:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I just deproDed the page. Meets requirement for notability with significant coverage in reliable sources including a full review in The Washington Post. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    You said you removed it because it had a review in The Washington Post? That does not equate plurality of reliable sources. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 19:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    A review in the WP is enough to DEPROD a page, yes. But please read the comment I left on TP in the OldProd template. And also read the sources on the page. I've added various references. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The Washington Post review was syndicated nationally; here's the review in The Newport News Daily Press. There are a lot more examples on newspapers.com. Toughpigs ( talk) 19:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks, that's a good source. Any others you can share? I can go ahead and update the article with them. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 19:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oh, I misunderstood. Doesn't the same coverage being repeated elsewhere still count as only one source? Are there more sources that are different from the WaPo review? Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yeah, WP:N says, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." So we still only have Washington Post as the only reliable source covering this film. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 19:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    we still only have Washington Post as the only reliable source covering this film. No. Just read the page. Thank you. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oh, you think these sources in the Wikipedia article are significant coverage. Here is a breakdown:
    • Regarding Off the Page, the film is only mentioned in passing, so it's not significant coverage.
    • For the other items, these are capsule reviews and not sufficient coverage. WP:NF says, "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews', plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides..." Such guides have many films with only one sentence about them.
    Thanks, Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 20:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I added some coverage with critical commentary, then. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep, borderline notable... I think it is fair to presume that if the WaPo wrote a full review of this 1996 film that additional coverage which would meet GNG exists. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Indeed. Added some. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment One of the sources added is for Space Cowboys and not this film, two others are what? Databases with no degree of help to the article, so that leaves one review which I couldn't read because of the paywall. And that really is only one source left in the article. It's hardly signov, my gut still tells me it's a delete unless there was something more. Govvy ( talk) 22:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    It's not on Space Cowboys. The Snippet is misleading. Read what I've quoted, it's about this film! (If you can't access the full page: Was Space Cowboys written by Moreland, and is it with Wirth?) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Well, the Washington Post is all I can find for reviews. Rotten Tomatoes has a "critic" review from rec.arts.movies, which is being rather generous [1] calling that a "critical review". I don't know if this is related [2], but most things that come up are about the Warhammer series. I don't see enough for film notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    No, that film is unrelated. Added some coverage though. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Besides the Washington Post and Psychotronic Video reviews, there are also reviews in the Malay Mail, the Hawaii Tribune-Herald and the Hickory Daily Record. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 07:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Laputa

Laputa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have no opinion on this, but am opening this AfD because there has been an edit war between WP:BLARing this article (citing a lack of secondary sources) and keeping it as an article. Natg 19 ( talk) 20:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ QuicoleJR, TompaDompa, and Викидим: (users involved in the edit war). Natg 19 ( talk) 20:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 20:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for opening this discussion; I was just about to do so myself. I'd prefer to uphold the redirect to Gulliver's Travels § Part III: A Voyage to Laputa, Balnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrib and Japan. I've had concerns about this article ever since I came across it last year. ( diff) — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • For the record, I undid the initial WP:BOLD WP:Blank and redirect on the basis that WP:Articles for deletion/Brobdingnag (2nd nomination) resulted in "keep" back in 2022, meaning there is precedent to keep stand-alone articles (such as Brobdingnag) on locations in Gulliver's Travels, and the article should at minimum be brought to WP:AfD first. On the merits of having a stand-alone page, a quick Google Scholar search ( scholar:laputa) gets a fair number of hits (that I have admittedly not looked particularly deeply into) that suggest that the topic at least meets our WP:Notability requirements. That does not rule out a WP:NOPAGE situation, of course. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Ping the participants in the above-mentioned deletion discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Brobdingnag (2nd nomination)—@ Jontesta, PatGallacher, Vexations, Jclemens, BennyOnTheLoose, and Bearian: Feel free to weigh in here. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ TompaDompa: The difference is that Brobdingnag has decent secondary sources, while Laputa uses only primary sources. QuicoleJR ( talk) 23:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'm inclined to believe that any content using these sources should be located at Gulliver's Travels or a subpage of that article. Skimming through some sources on the topic, I'm seeing a majority of the discussion of the subject in the context of the larger work and not of the location in isolation, and the encyclopedia should probably reflect that. I'm also not convinced by the precedent set by the Brobdingnag article, which is currently struggling from quite a bit of in-universe fluff that seems more reminiscent of a fan wiki. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 21:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I have no doubt that there exists a body of very substantial scholarship on Brobdingnag (and, possibly, Laputa). This is Swift, after all, not some computer game universe. However, it seems to be much easier to delete the existing text and simply wait for someone to create an article that will show this project in a good light. The kind of WP:OR obvious in both Laputa and Brobdingnag tends to attract more of the same. We want editors looking for secondary WP:RS, don't we? Викидим ( talk) 22:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    WP:NEXIST says that notability is based on the existence of reliable sources, not the current state of the article. You are suggesting we WP:TNT the article, which should only be done in extreme cases. It is much easier to improve an existing page than it is to create a new one. Toughpigs ( talk) 23:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    First three statements: yes, of course for all three. The fourth one It is much easier to improve an existing page than it is to create a new one. Not necessarily. I wrote some articles from scratch and modified some, and I think that in many cases writing from scratch is much easier. In this particular case, note how much the sources listed below by BennyOnTheLoose deviate from the current text: none of the subjects in the suggested secondary sources appear to have been touched upon in the current text. Викидим ( talk) 00:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect. The article as-is entirely relies on the text of Swift's books (the only non-Swift source currently listed does not appear to be used). I can imagine an article on the subject that shows notability, but this text is not it: I do not think that the WP:DUE content of the hypothetical replacement will use much of the current text. -- Викидим ( talk) 21:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Looks like there plenty of potential sources, e.g.:
Laputa, the Whore of Babylon, and the Idols of Science. Dennis Todd, Studies in Philology, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Winter, 1978), pp. 93-120
Science and Politics in Swift's Voyage to Laputa. Robert P. Fitzgerald, The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. 87, No. 2 (Apr., 1988), pp. 213-229
The Unity of Swift's "Voyage to Laputa": Structure as Meaning in Utopian Fiction. Jenny Mezciems, The Modern Language Review, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Jan., 1977), pp. 1-21
The "Motionless" Motion of Swift's Flying Island. Robert C. Merton. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1966), pp. 275-277
Laputa, the Whore of Babylon, and the Idols of Science. Dennis Todd. Studies in Philology, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Winter, 1978), pp. 93-120
The Scientific Background of Swift's 'Voyage to Laputa'. Marjorie Nicolson and Nora M. Mohler, Annals of Science, II (1937), 291-334
Swift's Flying Island in the 'Voyage to Laputa'. Marjorie Nicolson and Nora M. Mohler, Annals of Science, II (1937), 405-30
Swift's Laputians as a Caricature of the Cartesians. David Renaker PMLA, Vol. 94, No. 5 (Oct., 1979), pp. 936-944
These came up from a very quick search of JSTOR. I've only glanced over them, so if someone tells me that they don't actually cover the subject in detail then I'd be open to changing my view. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 22:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: One of the articles that BennyOnTheLoose identified, "The Unity of Swift's Voyage to Laputa: Structure as Meaning in Utopian Fiction", is included in Jonathan Swift: A Collection of Critical Essays. Internet Archive has the book, but unfortunately you can't see the whole thing: this is the link. Still, you can see the chapter heading and some sample text. Swift is important; people have been writing critical analyses of Swift's work for more than two centuries. — Toughpigs ( talk) 23:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I also found another chapter, "Gulliver in Laputa", in a 1968 collection, Twentieth Century Interpretations of Gulliver's Travels: A Collection of Critical Essays. Toughpigs ( talk) 23:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above sourcing. I'll further note that "delete it until someone comes along and writes a better article" is a statement void of empirical underpinning: no one has demonstrated that is how reality works, even though the sentiment has been bandied about for probably a decade or more. Jclemens ( talk) 20:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    My work on Russian Wikipedia provides many empirical examples of this - entirely common - situation: if an article on an important subject is missing, its very absence spurs editors recognizing its importance to create one. In cases like that, where there are a lot of users ready to add WP:OR based on the personal understanding of the Swift's text, the previous fate of the article helps to explain the need for secondary sources. Au contraire, a text that is essentially OR based on primary sources, tends to attract more of the same. Викидим ( talk) 20:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Take My Muffin

Take My Muffin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. Search throws up nothing obvious; cites are less than convincing. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Gaean Reach

Gaean Reach (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable article composed of unreliable or primary sources. A search showed only trivial mentions, no significant coverage in reliable sources. My assessment is that it does not pass WP:N. Jontesta ( talk) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta ( talk) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Science fiction BEFORE searches should include scholar and books. PhD thesis from South Africa here has detailed commentary on pp 91-100, and is contrasted to clearly notable science fiction universes like Asimov's Foundation. Also appears to be covered in Handbook of Vance Space by Andre-Driussi, ISBN 978-0964279568, but I am unable to see previews for that. Also appears in Xeno Fiction: More Best of Science Fiction: A Review of Speculative Literature by Broderick and Ikin, ISBN 978-1479400799, but again--I don't have access beyond snippet view, which appears promising. Jclemens ( talk) 03:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Rogue Planet (novel)

AfDs for this article:
Rogue Planet (novel) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found nothing that shows notability. Fails WP:BK. SL93 ( talk) 21:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • 'Comment': As for the sources shown in the first AFD - Starwars.com is not independent of the subject which is three of the links, Denver Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Club is unreliable (and about a different book), and SFsite is unreliable. SL93 ( talk) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. SL93 ( talk) 21:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Juhani (Star Wars)

Juhani (Star Wars) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Source analysis from reception: Of all sources that have been used, Gizmodo [3] is the only sigcov here. [4] Passing mention. [5] A trivia coverage from a listicle. [6] trivia coverage. [7] just a passing mention of Juhani being a lesbian character and can have lesbian relationship with trivia coverage [8] passing mention [9] listicle [10] just talked about her being created as a lesbian and the romance, a bit useful but this and Gizmodo isn't enough to pass the notability threshold. The rest of the sources that I didn't mention aren't reliable/situational and cannot help WP:GNG. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 10:49, 21 May 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 Video games. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 10:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to the character list. The reception consists of trivial mentions with no indication of standalone notability at all. Simply being a milestone for something is not enough to merit a page, unfortunately. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 14:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • The character's milestone status does seem to have gotten her some attention from outside the normal fan-coverage sources, however. Whether it's sufficiently significant coverage, I'm a terrible judge. But see: Dym, Brianna (2019). "The burden of queer love". Press Start. 5 (1): 19–35. (pp. 24-26 in particular) and Shaw, Adrienne; Friesem, Elizaveta (2016). "Where is the queerness in games?: Types of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer content in digital games". International Journal of Communication. 10: 3877–3889. (admittedly, only one paragraph on p. 3883 but includes context and analysis outside the first game). Snippet view (and Google Scholar) suggest there might be some discussion of the character in chapter 8 of this Routledge-published book, but I don't have immediate access and my library doesn't have a copy handy. Lubal ( talk) 18:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect There are only passing mentions of this in reliable sources. It isn't enough to pass the notability threshold. Jontesta ( talk) 03:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Torchwood items

List of Torchwood items (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't use the term CRUFT lightly, but this certainly feels like the definition of it. Nothing covers objects in Torchwood to a significant extent, and the bulk of the items covered here are minor and non-notable. I definitely feel this list should likely be deleted, or at the very least partially merged into the Doctor Who items list, though I'm not feeling confident on that list either. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 17:23, 20 May 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. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 17:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No indication of meeting NLIST, and it looks like it would fit in perfectly on a Fandom wiki. Ping me if anything comes up that could change my mind. QuicoleJR ( talk) 18:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A complete mishmash of random things related to Torchwood, ranging from things that appeared in the background of an episode, to things mentioned once or twice, to just real world things that just happened to be shown on screen. There are very clearly no sources that cover this random gathering as a group or set, meaning it fails WP:NLIST, and probably runs afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. I think even a Fandom wiki would think twice before including a page like this. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep meets WP:CSC #2. The topic of this list is "Torchwood" not "Torchwood items", much like the topic of "characters of franchise" is "franchise" so the group does not have to be discussed as a set to meet NLIST, because Torchwood is already notable. No objection to renaming the article, but since we have other AfDs likely to close as merge to here (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardiff Rift) deletion is particularly problematic as it would result in the destruction of content that could be better rewritten from history to be more encyclopedic. Jclemens ( talk) 20:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Just because Torchwood is inherently notable does not mean this list should really be existing. It's a collection of indiscriminate information about random items from the show, none of which seem to have much of an indicator that they're actually important. There's no real encyclopedic value here, as there's nothing really to be discussed. Non-notable subsets related to shows have been removed in the past for these reasons (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who henchmen (2nd nomination) as an example from the same shared universe). As for the Cardiff Rift discussion, the Rift isn't really an item, so I'm not sure why it's being brought up in regards to that discussion, especially since the Rift isn't even mentioned in the Torchwood items article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 21:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    WP:OSE applies both ways; previous removals aren't normative. If there's a need to edit a list, great, do it, improve it by editing rather than deletion. The fact that this is brought up in that deletion discussion gives us a hint that 1) there is a need for an article to cover not-individually-notable aspects from Torchwood, and 2) this may be it, but at the wrong title. I'm not the person to do this, since my wife peace out'ed after Countrycide so I'm hardly informed enough about the series. Jclemens ( talk) 23:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    While CSC applies to lists, the list must still meet NLIST in order to be a valid standalone list, regardless of the notability of the parent topic. If this weren't the case, we'd be swarmed with a lot of useless lists like this one that don't really have any benefit to existing beyond the fact there's nothing saying they can't exist. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:NLIST and WP:IINFO, per Rorshacma. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this as a stand-alone list. Shooterwalker ( talk) 18:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
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 redirect‎ to James Follett#Radio without prejudice to selectively merging sourced content, if any. Owen× ☎ 22:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Earthsearch Mindwarp

Earthsearch Mindwarp (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing any RS to consider against the inclusion criteria - not all BBC radio dramas are notable. WP:NOTEVERYTHING WP:NOTPLOT JMWt ( talk) 08:29, 17 May 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.

Vette (Star Wars)

AfDs for this article:
Vette (Star Wars) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It still feels like the only good source is [11] that. The controversy were mostly discussed about the game, similarly like Controversies surrounding Mass Effect 3 and not the character. It doesn't help notability about the character either, AND may be WP:UNDUE or whatever it is. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, always specify a target article if you are proposing a Merge or Redirect. We have hundreds (thousands?) of articles on Star Wars, its worlds and characters on many different platforms (film, TV, books, video games, maybe board games (?)) and the closer should be guessing which one you think is the most appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Malhun Hatun (fictional character)

Malhun Hatun (fictional character) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Having hard time to find any valuable source per WP:BEFORE + character has no reception at all. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 10:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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 merge‎ to Torchwood or an appropriate section thereof which can be handled editorially Star Mississippi 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Cardiff Rift

Cardiff Rift (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG its WP:ALLPLOT and has been tagged for notability for 12 years Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • @ TheLongTone: WP:Fancruft: "The use of the term ... is not a substitute for a well-reasoned argument based on existing Wikipedia policies." Daranios ( talk) 15:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not if I was voting for deletion but its a valid argument for merging of redirecting. The article is fancruft; the topic can be adequately covered in a para elsewhere. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between editors arguing to Keep this article and those advocating a Merge or Redirect but who have offered no target article so it would be impossible to carry out their recommendation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep this article needs a heavy rewrite but I feel there's enough to show notability, especially since there really isn't a viable merge target. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 13:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge target What about Wormholes in fiction? Keeping this ludicrous mass of cruft as a standalone article simply because of doubt as to where it should be merge/redirected to is lame beyond belief.13:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • TheLongTone, it's a real and practical concern. XFDcloser can't close a discussion as Redirect or Merge without a target article identified. It just can't be done if that is the consensus opinion. And there has to be agreement on what that target article is. That's how the software works. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 19 May 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.

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Science_fiction_and_fantasy&oldid=1225509561"