Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MPants at work (talk | contribs) at 21:03, 9 August 2021 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elder race.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.
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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Science fiction or fantasy. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
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

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. WP:HEY, sources were found to improve the article. RL0919 (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elder race

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

No indication of any independent, reliable sources discussing the trope as a trope; lots of WP:USERGEN content is available, but nothing published that provides more than a passing mention. No sources cited in the article. An alternative might be to remove the current lede, move to List of elder races, and establish a clear standard for inclusion that could be laid out in a new lede. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I too tried to find RS for this subject. I felt like there must be some literary criticism somewhere, but it does seem to be fancruft. And believe me, I'm a fan. I searched expecting I'd find something in scholarship. (Note I'm travelling with bad internet, so I didn't do an exhaustive search. I'll try again when I get home and see if anything turns up. If it does, I'll revise.) Changing to keep. —valereee (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's John Clute in The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, attempting to list the typical features. The entry listed under "Literature", from The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Themes, Works, and Wonders is a couple of pages long, with a "survey" and a short following discussion, binding the themes together (mostly visible in Google Books). I didn't get any real in-depth additional articles on it while quickly glancing at Google Scholar, but the term did turn up often enough to indicate that this is a concept they assume the reader to be familiar with and which is in academic use. Ping valereee. /Julle (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment would it be worth exploring a merge with ancient astronauts? Though I see that’s already offloaded it’s “in popular culture” section to a sprawling list article. Artw (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there's anything here worth merging. We have an unsourced introduction that is mostly self-contradictory waffling that reads like someone trying to add 200 extra words to a college essay (An elder race might be extinct, or they might not. An elder race might be benevolent, or they might be malevolent, or they might be indifferent) followed by an enormous crufty list of examples, none of which are sourced in any way that demonstrates that they are good examples of an elder race. If we could strip this down to a couple of paragraphs of well sourced content then I would 100% agree with merging it into a related article or one of the "list of fantasy plot elements" type articles, but I'm simply not seeing any such content here. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR, not a notable topic, maybe something for TVTropes or urban dictionary, but at best WP:TOOSOON for us. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It didn't take long to find a respectable encyclopedia article about the topic. This demonstrates that it's feasible to write one; that WP:BEFORE has not been done properly; and that policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." There are plenty of other related pages such as Ancient_astronauts#In_popular_culture and Fermi paradox. The latter really is a major puzzle – "where is everybody?" Perhaps they are all busy editing the Encyclopedia Galactica in a wiki way so that all attention and effort is consumed by endless discussion... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Topic fails WP:GNG, so even removing the OR wouldn't help this stand on its own. TTN (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced fancruft. Even if the topic is notable, this is a clear WP:TNT candidate since experience has shown that leaving cruft around obstructs the writing of an encyclopedia article rather than acting as a platform for improvement. Reyk YO! 12:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have eliminated all original research in the article and it is now fully sourced. While it was definitely a TNT candidate, that is fixed now. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this were to be kept in any form, I would actually propose the opposite of the Nominator's suggestion - rewrite the lede as prose information, and delete the list of unsourced, mostly WP:OR, examples. But, that's assuming there are enough reliable sources actually discussing the concept itself to establish notability. While there are plenty of examples of the term being used, the book mentioned above, which is actually already included in the article, is the only one I've found that actually discusses and describes the concept in-depth. Rorshacma (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Huh, what's going on? Two secondary sources have been found which treat this in significant detail, i.e. one page in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and two-and-a-half pages in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy. So it clearly does meet the requirements of WP:GNG. What's with all the "there are no secondary sources", when there clearly was one already in the article at the time of nomination, and a second one has been found? The fact that the current state is not good is no reason for deletion, as this can be improved, which isn't even difficult, just needs (a lot of) work. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that I think it's entirely possible to keep this article just based on the sources that have been listed so far, without even having to go to further references. This is clearly an established concept used in academic literature and discussions. /Julle (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, and The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy also contains a bibliography of additional sources! So I really hope the closer of this discussion will discount all votes based on "not notable" without explanation or with "no sources" as explanation. Daranios (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By deleting it, you will incur the wrath of the Elders! Real talk though, it's a notable subject mentioned in two encyclopedias of science fiction and a very common trope in fantasy and sci-fi.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article has now been completely rewritten. /Julle (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources indicate notability, and there are apparently more available. Though I have never really encountered the idea of elders as more decadent than humans, as cited in the article. Being "elder" is typically used to depict these races as more experienced or advanced, not regardless of whether they are protagonists or antagonists. Dimadick (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2021 (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.
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. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Troll (Dungeons & Dragons)

Troll (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The only non-primary, real world-based source is extremely trivial. TTN (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - though I admit this requires editors to think outside the box a bit. Before I get to that, as always, WP:BEFORE is a concern. There doesn't seem to have been any tagging, clean-up, discussion of the article, or review of the history before this was nominated. Because there was - on the day of the nomination - a concerted effort by Primergrey to fix problems with the article. Rather than seeing if that work would continue and could make the article better, it was nominated for deletion instead. Always concerning. Beyond that, those who know D&D understand how ubiquitous trolls are. They have featured in dozens of live-streamed versions of the game, are featured (in their various forms) in almost every core book associated with the game for multiple editions, and have transcended the game to become a core part of the culture surrounding the game (see its use by the creator of D&D in the name of the company he used to produce material for the game; Troll Lord Games). The extensive coverage by multiple sources in the form of live-streamed play is enough for me. But there's also this, this, and this. St★lwart111 01:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have another reference for you. https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1227.html You see a clear reference to how Trolls in AD&D are XP fodder. But Serini Toormuck develops a friendly business relationship with them and they end up saving her life using Troll blood.Slimy asparagus (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons (might do a soft redirect, they are cheap). Reviewing sources above 1) blog, niche but on topic, no "about" but they list their staff [1] 3) same as 2 but openly admits they are a blog too, 4) a comic, seriously? Given that quality wise, there is little distinguishing 2 from 3, so arguably 2 is a "multi-author blog" too (the cited article's quality is hardly impressive) and all of the cited sources are very niche, if those are the best sources we can find for this, that's hardly helping. The article has a once sentence reception sourced to a Dummies... book: [2], and that's still probably the most reliable, independent treatment of this. Sorry, the best I can see here would be to rescued that sentence referenced to Dummies, copy it to Troll which can mention this race appears in the popular D&D franchise, and that's it. PS. Merge done, I copied that sentence to 'Troll' article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not talking about "a webcomic". We're talking about The Order of the Stick here. ;-) But I would prefer a redirect over a delete. Slimy asparagus (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as I like The Order of the Stick, my point is that it is not a WP:RS :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine BOLS would be considered a fairly reliable source. They seem to have proper editorial oversight and declare paid advertising fairly openly. Tribality is in blog format, yes, but its multi-author and has been nominated for a couple of ENnie Awards. We're not talking about some basement-dweller's fan-fiction. They aren't the best or only sources I could find; I barely looked. My point was that the nominator hadn't looked at all, and we should expect more. St★lwart111 10:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to vastly overestimate the amount of effort that needs to go into BEFORE. Besides that, I don't see how you pointing out three non-reliable sources means I didn't do a cursory search for sources. This stuff is no different than the dozens of trashy listlces that pop up. Those are a dime a dozen and are not inherently indicative of the existence of proper sources. TTN (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond WP:OTHERSTUFF... on the contrary, nominators regularly get a free-pass for lazy nominations. BEFORE.C.3 alone means the article's talk page should have a recent discussion that attempts to address the issues with the article, stand-alone notability, or a proposal to merge it to another article. There hasn't been a new discussion started there since 2010, so... St★lwart111 11:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally nobody does any of that. BEFORE is considered to be a search for sources and nothing more than that. TTN (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But literally everybody should... I tend to think WP:BEFORE is fairly clear. It has 4 explicit parts and a search for sources is one requirement under one of those four parts. That it has become common practice to ignore that policy is a sad reflection of the state of WP:AFD. But I appreciate your honesty here. St★lwart111 23:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Covered in non-D&D sources like the D20 SRG (e.g. [3]). Inclusion of a fictional element in multiple notable works (which include separate versions of D&D, as trolls have been featured in each) is a recognized reason to include a separate article: only one version of the game can be "primary" and all other usages are necessarily secondary, and of course each game is reliable for its own content. Jclemens (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concept seems quite widespread in popular culture and iconic for D&D, seeing that e.g. at non-rpg-related book like Sorted!: The Good Psychopath’s Guide to Bossing Your Life has a sentence like "At one point our Twitter account boasted more trolls than a Dungeons & Dragons convention in Tromsø..."
There is quite a number of secondary sources, and I am suprised that this is not mentioned in the nomination. We have The Monsters Know What They're Doing, pages 249, 257-260. In addition to creative in-game use and in-universe description this has the creative origin and a bit of reception. If the BOLS article can be considered a reliable source, the case is already made and the minimum requirements of WP:GNG fulfilled. Everything else I've seen is much shorter, but can collectively give us something: Creative origin: The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters, p. 193; La mythologie nordique dans Donjons & Dragons Entre réception et stéréotypes, The Evolution of Fantasy Role-Playing Games. Description: Faeries, Trolls; Dungeons for Science: Mapping Belief Places and Spaces. Prominence in the game: Heroic Worlds p. 92; Lexikon der Zauberwelten p. 12; Dungeons, Dragons, and Digital Denizens. Given the individually limited scope of the latter sources, I am not totally averse to a merge to, I guess, Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. But I think it's not really a problem to beat WP:WHYN when using the sources discussed so far (and expect there are more out there). So I prefer to keep a stand-alone article. Daranios (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technical point: can you link to google page view? Your links always go to the cover page, that's not as friendly. Also, can you tell is if any of these sources (outside BOLS) meet WP:SIGCOV and if so, why? The ones I checked seem to be mentions in passing (a sentence or two) more so than in-depth coverage (which I tend to define for myself - given SIGCOV is pretty vague here - as a paragraph or more, not counting plot summary). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Monsters Know... in itself is significant coverage in my book. For the others it's the usual thing: I'll have to check again, but probably none has a paragraph or more. Only collectively they provide significant coverage, i.e. allow us to write more "than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic", which is why we have the notability guideline in the first place. Oh, wait, Dungeons & Dragons For Dummies, p. 362 (+ mentions on p. 3 and 224) might just make it to paragraph if you remove phrases summarizing the in-universe description.
Google searches: Trolls, Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies, Faries; The Evolution of Fantasy Role-Playing Games; Dungeons, Dragons, and Digital Denizens; The Ashgate Encyclopedia, first hit, scroll one page down to 193 (I wonder if there's a mention of D&D in Ashgate's troll article, but didn't see a preview that has that). Daranios (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2021 (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.
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. Consensus appears keep. The minority dissenting !votes seem to bring up problems that are already identified on WP:CLN - and those apply to all lists, not just this one. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fantasy worlds

List of fantasy worlds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. One would assume there are as many fantasy worlds as there are works of fantasy, so it would be ridiculously extensive to attempt to list them all. There is also no clear criteria for inclusion, either. What results is a list that is largely context-less nonsense. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Literary Wonderlands : A Journey Through the Greatest Fictional Worlds Ever Created
  2. Imaginary Worlds: The Art of Fantasy
  3. Exploring Fantasy Worlds: Essays on Fantastic Literature
  4. Fantasy Worlds: New Ways to Explore, Adventure, and Play
  5. War of the Fantasy Worlds: C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien ...
  6. Revisiting Imaginary Worlds: A Subcreation Studies Anthology
  7. Alternative Worlds in Fantasy Fiction
  8. Exploring Imaginary Worlds: Essays on Media, Structure, and Subcreation
  9. 25 fantasy worlds from the past 25 years we'd want to visit
  10. Top Fantasy Worlds in Literature: A Definitive List
  11. The Top 10 Greatest Fictional Worlds Ever Created
  12. The Routledge Companion to Imaginary Worlds
Andrew🐉(talk) 11:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, iUniverse is commonly used to republish regular works which are out of print and that book was first published by the Carol Publishing Group in 1994. And its author has published many other works -- see her own article. So, that source is fine for our purpose and it's just one of a dozen that I listed. The essential point is that there's a huge amount of material about the topic out there and to claim otherwise is absurd. Compiling a list of notable fantasy worlds is quite straightforward and, as it will naturally be lengthy, it's reasonable to have a separate page as an index of our many pages about them. WP:LISTPURPS explains that this is a reasonable thing to do and the page has been meeting this need for over sixteen years now. There's no valid reason to delete it so what we have here is just drive-by, disruptive deletionism for its own sake. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - First of all, none of the points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE actually applies here. Or does it? If this is the only policy-based argument, I don't really see why we have this discussion.
- Next, the topic of the list is obviously notable according to WP:LISTN, since we have an indisputed article Fantasy world. (And in addition we have the sources provided by Andrew Davidson.) The fact that the article is not perfect, and may contain entries that don't belong here, is not reason for deletion as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.
- Seeing that the list contains many blue links, this list serves the purpose of navigation, one of the recognized purposes for the existence of lists.
- Since when has article size ever been a reason for deletion of a topic on Wikipedia!? If the length of the list is seen as a problem, the policy-based solution is not deletion but splitting according to WP:SPLITLIST.
- We have Category:Fantasy worlds, which I hope is uncontroversial. Having a list that parallels a category is in general viewed as beneficial according to WP:NOTDUPE.
- But is it advantageous in this case to have a list when we already have a category that an interested person could use for navigation? - Yes, definitely, because the list can do in compact form what the category cannot: Providing the novel/game/etc. and author(s) together with the bare name, wich is what the category gives us. Additionally, the list can contain worlds not notable enough to have their own article but notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia at all according to WP:LISTCRIT.
- But "What about the world created by my kid brother? Or the pretty awesome one our game master made few years ago": Easily solved, just apply the core content policies of WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research.
- If this is still viewed as too open, that's again easily solved: Limit the entries to those notable by themselves (i.e. generally blue-linked ones) and those that can be supported by a secondary source as suggested by WP:CSC - a guideline specifically written to solve the problem of lists which would otherwise be perceived as indiscriminate!

So I can only summarize that I see all kinds of policies and guidelines suggesting keep and possibly improve (WP:PRESERVE has already been mentioned in addition to all the ones I've listed), and none that suggest deletion. Daranios (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The closest comparison I can make is making an article called List of corgis because we have an article on Corgis. It's going to be overbroad and serve no encyclopedic purpose. Just because an article exists doesn't mean an according list should be created for it.
Category:Fantasy worlds is equally problematic. It should really just be merged into Category:Fictional universes. There is frankly no difference. The articles on Lists of fictional universes are equally as problematic as this one but at least it's not totally superfluous. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Are there notable Corgis? Enough (let's say more than five) to make a list sensible for navigational purposes? If the answer to both is yes, then that it's fine to have a List of Corgis is exactly what WP:LISTN says. If you think that's generally a bad idea, in my opinion you should ask if we should change WP:LISTN. As for Fantasy worlds and fictional universes being basically the same, please see my opinion at your answer to the first vote. Daranios (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Ah, yeah, and which of the four points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE would actually apply here? Until that has been clarified, I still think the deletion nomination is fundamentally flawed. Daranios (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I do not believe the argument for WP:INDISCRIMINATE has made successfully made. On the other hand WP:LISTN, WP:LISTCRIT and WP:NOTDUPE are extremely valid points for this list, and their arguments have swayed me. And for the people arguing that a PLANET is the same as a UNIVERSE, well it's obvious the don't understand those words actual meaning and need to read the first sentence of both those articles before they weigh in again. Finally the argument that actually makes some sense is WP:CSC; remove all references to universes that don't have articles on their own. THAT I agree with. Timmccloud (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we exactly define planet in terms of fantasy? Planet is a scientific term while "world" is a fantasy one. A fantasy "world" can range from a planet to a plane to a universe. However, even when the story is set on a world, its fundamental laws generally conform to that of its fictional universe. The author essentially must create a universe to create that world, so one is a total subset of the other. And when cruft is removed, the list is such a duplication that there is no need to retain it. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It should be pointed out that the number of blue links is a bit misleading here. Many of them do not actually link to the articles on the worlds themselves, but to a broader topic such as the series or movie they appeared in. In addition, as mentioned, many of them don't fit the actual topic, either being not a fantasy world, or not a "world" at all (for example, can anyone remotely try to claim that the city of Riverdale (Archie Comics) could be honestly referred to as a "Fantasy World" as defined by our article on the topic?). If we can agree that this list should be culled to only contain entries that A) have actual independent Wikipedia articles on the world itself and B) actually fit the definition of a Fantasy world, then yes, I agree that this would be a perfectly valid navigational list. However, that would mean removing almost the entirety of the current list - the category linked to above is a fairly accurate representation of the number of entries that would remain here, which is a fraction of what is currently here. If people can agree that removing most of the current list is an uncontroversial cleanup (and maybe have the lead be expanded to more clearly state the criteria for inclusion, so it just does not become another huge mess over time), then I think this could actually be salvaged per Daranios' argument. Rorshacma (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A substantial number of those in Category:Fantasy worlds are already in List of fictional universes in literature, and many more, while not listed in that or its sibling pages, are also described in their articles as "universes" rather than strictly "worlds". Most of those not listed are also from gaming which isn't part of the universe lists but I suppose could be. If a salvaged shorter list is heavily duplicative I don't see the point of it. Reywas92Talk 22:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reywas92: I've written why I see the merit of the distinction by genre below. If you think otherwise, why are you voting deletion rather than a merge of the lists (and the List of science fiction universes, another list by genre, if we're at it), in the spirit of WP:AtD? Daranios (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably because there is nothing from this list that can be merged. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: How do you come to this conclusion, given that there are at least some blue-linked entries remaining in this list which are not covered in List of science fiction universes? Daranios (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pretty much an unmanageable, indiscriminate list. Outside of the criteria for fantasy world not being concrete enough for proper inclusion criteria to be established, it's just always going basically just end up as a list of fantasy books anyway. TTN (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it weird that the topic is described as too extensive, and the broader topic, List of fictional universes in literature, is described as the better alternative, and both are used as arguments against the existence of this list. That seems... contradictory. So maybe the truth is in the middle, that neither argument applies?
I think there are good reasons why we have articles for both fantasy world and fictional universe, and both corresponding list have their merit for navigational purposes. As a reader, I may be interested in the broader topic of fictional creations. But I think we can be sure that some readers will be interested in worlds specifically of the fantasy genre, and would not like to personally sort out entries from sci-fi, etc. Note also that the List of fictional universes in literature has not way to distinguish by genre except, for part of the cases, by reading through all text. Daranios (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Redundant to numerous other lists of fictional universes, and this one is probably the worst of the lot. No clear inclusion criteria, little to no sourcing, and with no navigational value. The concept of a fictional universe is of course notable, but that doesn't justify an endless procession of functionally identical lists. Even fansites like TVTropes and Wikia have the discretion to say "one page per topic". Reyk YO! 10:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's definitely not something we need. Actually, we need to merge all the lists back into List of fictional universes because there are enough to fit them in a single list article if we pare it down to only bluelinked articles. The only reason it was split into genres was due to all the fancruft. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another thing, seeing that "no clear inclusion criteria" has now been claimed as a reason for deletion multiple times. We have an article fantasy world. So including what conforms to that article (and of course following the policies of Wikipedia to avoid an indiscriminate amount of entries) gives us an inclusion criterion. But if this is still not clear enough for some reason, defining clearer criteria for inclusion is something that can easily be done. WP:AtD tells us "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." So as "no clear inclusion criteria" can be solved, this is no argument for deletion according to Wikipedia's deletion policy. Daranios (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I eliminated any entry that didn't have a link to an article. Not everything here is listed elsewhere. Valid list for navigation. Inclusion criteria is clearly listed now at the top of the article. Dream Focus 16:44, 8 August 2021 (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.
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 KITT#KARR. RL0919 (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KARR (Knight Rider)

KARR (Knight Rider) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Having just rescued KITT#Reception_and_significance by adding the linked section there (and cutting a ton on fancruft and trivia from the bloated article), I submit that his KARR equivalent (KARR was the antagonist of the series that KITT was the "hero" of) is beyond rescue (it is a WP:PLOT summary in WP:FANCRUFT style, mostly unreferenced and it fails WP:GNG). In my research for KITT, KARR is mentioned in the sidenotes, generally as a plot summary, one article had a single sentence or two (but no detailed analysis) on how it was the "fearful" side of automation (KITT is "good AI" because it has a human friend, KARR is "bad AI" since it has no human oversight; interesting but not enough for its own article, maybe a footnote in the article about AI takeover or Existential risk from artificial general intelligence could be added; if anyone wants to work on this the mention I reference is here). Not sure if a redirect to KITT#KARR_redesign makes sense since that sections pretty bad and probably should go as well. PS. There is nothing to merge here - it's all plot summary, and effectively unreferenced to boot. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - The topic does not have the sources necessary to stand alone at this time. TTN (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Redirect to KITT#KARR. A quick look at the nominated article seems to bear out the nominator's assertion that there is nothing to merge for a lack of proper sourcing, but I think it is reasonable to have a redirect for navigational purposes. There does exist some coverage of KARR, e.g. here, here, and here, but it seems to be mostly in relation to KITT, so it seems reasonable to cover KARR in the KITT article. I also agree with the nominator that the KITT#KARR section could use a complete overhaul. If that section is expanded enough (with proper sourcing) we could discuss splitting it off to a stand-alone article again, but for now this would seem to be the best solution. TompaDompa (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To KITT, although it may be out of the scope of the KITT article since it's an entirely different character. Still, better than this mess of cruft.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:50, 29 August 2021 (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.
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 delete. WP:NOR is a core policy, and the convincing arguments that this list is by its structure and content mostly OR have not been rebutted or in most cases even addressed by the "keep" opinions. An attempt by an editor to remove the OR was reverted. I must therefore give less weight to the "keep" opinions. Sandstein 07:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of vampire traits in folklore and fiction

AfDs for this article:
List of vampire traits in folklore and fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An indiscriminate list of traits with no clear reason for its existence. Many of the entries aren't even technically vampires, like the Wraith from Stargate, who are an alien race that resemble vampires, as well as rampant speculation, so there is a heavy dose of original research in most of the entries.

An examination of why the vampire traits exist could make sense, but not as a list, it appears to be solely for trivia purposes. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, purely indiscriminate OR. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are 49 references in the article now. This is useful to show have vampires have been portrayed throughout history, bringing a greater understanding to this notable subject. Dream Focus 02:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vampire literature is rather descriptive on how vampires have been portrayed throughout history, including how vampirism turned into a disease that could be contracted, etc. This article is not about that at all, only an indiscriminate comparison of vampiric traits. A lot of the references are from the same place too, so there's definitely not 49 actual separate references and many of them are primary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citing the number of references in the article is not a very compelling arguing, seeing as most of them are not from a reliable source, but merely pieces of fiction. And in fact, most of those 49 references are from the same handful of pieces of fiction. For example, 11 of the 49 sources are all just episodes from the one show, Forever Knight. And there are ones that are simply youtube videos, or ones that aren't even actual references, simply random footnotes like "Manga-Exclusive Character". Its the actual quality of the sources, and if they actually cover the information that's being presented in the article, that matters. Not the fact that there are 49 (mostly terrible) sources. Rorshacma (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's the nomination which is indiscriminate as there's no clear reason for its existence – we already had a discussion and the consensus was to keep. You see, if you actually do some WP:BEFORE, you find that there is extensive coverage of the topic. For example, here's an entire book on the topic: Vampires of Lore : Traits and Modern Misconceptions. And here's an entire Encyclopedia, which naturally has plenty to say about the various traits in the various portrayals. So, the usual policies apply: WP:ATD; WP:DELAFD; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a topic that has been covered a ton, even if the article is not in the best shape.★Trekker (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or perhaps a very light Merge to Vampire#Description and common attributes - An article or section of the main Vampire article actually discussing common, notable vampire traits that are actually referenced to reliable sources that are not simply pieces of fiction is a valid, notable topic. Maybe the books that Andrew cited would actually be valid sources for that. What they are not valid sources for is a massive list that is entirely WP:INDISCRIMINATE and almost entirely unsourced. Most of this information is entirely WP:OR - there are no listed reliable sources, for example, describing the official traits of vampires in the Sesame Street universe, simply a youtube video that someone watched and extrapolated "facts" from. Additionally many of the entries have "probably", "maybe", or question marks after their "facts", pretty much showing that the information was not taken from an actual reliable source presenting this information, but is being guessed after watching/reading said piece of fiction. There are a few actually reliably sourced pieces of information here, mostly the ones using the Skal book as a reference. That actual reliably sourced information can be merged into the main Vampire article, if it is not already there, until a time when maybe an article that is not 90 percent WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH is developed. Rorshacma (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - You could probably make a pretty decent summary style prose article on the evolution of vampire traits and weaknesses in media, but that is not this article. This is just a dumpster fire of indiscriminate information that has no purpose other than showing how to not make an article. There is zero merit in keeping it around. TTN (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an impressive piece of WP:OR and I'd suggest someone copies this to some fan wiki for vampires or such. But it is not suitable for us (OR, quite major too). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article as it stands. The problem is that this article relies on editors data-gathering from primary sources. That's textbook WP:OR: "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Having lots of references which are primary sources is simply thoroughly-researched OR (Is it up to a wikipedia editor to decide that it's of significant interest to vampire lore that Count Duckula was green?). An acceptable page would be one that deleted all of these fancruft magnet tables and instead used secondary source surveys.OsFish (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC) This is now my second choice: I have suggested a move to a new title (see below)[reply]
  • Comment I'll admit that I found it rather amusing to see Count Chocula's weaknesses listed as Gets soggy in milk; mastication; expiration date., but I also think it's embarrassing for Wikipedia. The previous AfD referenced above was back in 2012 and although the consensus was to keep the article, it was also noted that the article needed improvement which has not really materialized since.
    The article is at present basically a "Comparison of X" article (see e.g. comparison of web browsers) with a different title. While I don't think that there's anything wrong with "comparison of X" articles per se, I don't think they're appropriate for fictional concepts. See the essay WP:CARGO—fiction is not fact and collecting raw data does not produce analysis. Instead, what we have is a bunch of WP:Original research and content sourced mostly to WP:Primary sources, which should be quite a red flag. This is the kind of content I would expect to find over at Wikia (which is not a knock on them, just an acknowledgement that we do things differently), not here.
    We can of course write about concepts in fiction if we do it in prose form rather than in list form; I have personally rewritten a few list articles and turned them to prose articles, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction. Poorly constructed lists such as this one often become WP:INDISCRIMINATE and uninformative; they become list of rainy days in London rather than climate of London. This is one of the problems with writing "list of..." articles, since it makes them more difficult to fix (note that none of the articles I mentioned as having converted to prose were titled "list of..."). Covering the topic of vampire traits in our existing prose articles (Vampire literature#Traits of vampires in fiction, Vampire#Description and common attributes) as suggested above rather than in this terrible list article seems like a way better solution to me.
    That being said, there is a way to convert this into a proper encycoplaedic article with the current title: scrap the tables and replace them with a paragraph or two of sourced analysis about each trait. If that were to be done, I would potentially be in favour of keeping the article (I say potentially because it might still be more appropriate to merge, it's difficult to say without having seen that as-yet hypothetical version of this article). David J. Skal's V is for Vampire : An A to Z Guide to Everything Undead might be a good source to use for that. TompaDompa (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:FANCRUFT. That sources covering vampire traits in fiction can be found does not translate into having a list cataloging every piece of trivia on the subject. See, for example, the very last entry, detailing the leadership, ranks and collective organization of vampires in RuneScape: where's the significant coverage of that in reliable and independent sources? Most of the list follows this pattern. Avilich (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely, if there is something in an article that's poorly written or referenced, it would be possible to edit that article and remove it. For example, someone adding "best known for being a huge dumbass" to an article about a politician will be responded to with removal of the sentence, rather than deletion of the article. jp×g 01:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • User OsFish tried doing that (he removed basically everything) and it got reverted. Between nearly blanking the page and voting delete, there is no difference. Vampirism in folklore should be covered in adequate prose style, not an indiscriminate list. Whoever is disposed to do the former is free to proceed anywhere else without even touching this list. Avilich (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply. WP:FANCRUFT is pejorative, and not a policy-based reason for deletion. Individual bits of WP:OR can and should be sourced or excised. Once again, we have a raft of WP:VAGUEWAVEs that don't actually amount to any policy-based reason for deletion, and hence really should be considered de facto WP:IDONTLIKEIT and discarded by the closing admin. The admissions above that with work this would constitute an encyclopedic topic, albeit maybe without Count Chocula, means that deletion is not the only option for keeping the article, and WP:ATD expects that editing, rather than deletion, be used in such cases. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A fair bit of this material might be usable in Vampire, or Vampire literature, or even Vampire traits in folklore and fiction, all of which are obviously notable. What's not viable is this bizarre list. I don't see any literature providing a comparative overview of all these traits, and in the absence of such, the list is very much indiscriminate. How were the works selected? How are the traits selected? Why are entire folkloric traditions treated the same as single films? How is variation within a folkloric tradition accounted for? These problems largely go away if one is using a decent scholarly source and writing prose, but I really don't see how a policy-compliant table is possible. As an aside, the title's wildly wrong, too; it's not a list of traits, of which there are distinctly more than 7. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having read the article and the comments above, it's clear this is WP:OR, an editor's analysis of a complex situation in the attempt of imposing order; this is clearly not according to policy, as the analysis itself is unsupported by reliable sources, indeed any sources. I therefore concur with Vanamonde93 that this is not rescuable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being based mostly on original research, that is, traits being taken from reading novels or watching films and television shows, generally without even being cited to the primary source much less to a secondary source. Even the traits of vampires in European and North American folklore are mostly unsourced. In addition, some fictional works depict only one vampire, and it's not always clear whether the characteristics of that one vampire would be true for other vampires in the same fictional universe, but this table does not clearly address that issue. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- this spreadsheet is inherently original research. Reyk YO! 10:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- a lot of people have put a lot of work into this... Tamtrible (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a terrible argument btw. WP:MERCY. - hako9 (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: An article being stupid is not a deletion rationale, and an article being shitty is not a deletion rationale. These are great reasons to clean up an article; AfD is not cleanup. As Vanamonde noted in their delete !vote above, the subject of vampires is notable, a list of fictional vampires is notable, and the topic of the traits of fictional vampires is notable; I am not seeing the great evil of this article's existence. If it contains original research, surely it's within our power to remove the original research. Is the claim really being made here that it's impossible to find a citation for whether vampires in folklore can be destroyed by sunlight? If it is, that's obviously false, and if it isn't, I see no reason for this to be at AfD. jp×g 01:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Vampire traits in folklore and fiction: ie it shouldn't be a "list of" article. Delete !votes are based on the fundamental structure of the article as it is. Of course, it's valid to object that poorly sourced articles can be revised if reliable sources are out there, and it's true that secondary sources make general comments on the representations of vampires citing notable examples. The problem is, the current structure that lists individual examples backed by OR is dictated by the title, which means the OR objections are valid, not simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The subject matter, if sourced according to policy to secondary sources, does not lend itself to being presented as a table where individual examples are listed. I had a brief go at taking a knife to the article to get rid of the HUGE amount of OR and gave up because basically, it should be prose-based. It could have a short neat table at the end for convenience comparing regional variations (European vs Chinese etc.), but not as the meat of the article. So change it from being a list article.OsFish (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update I have removed the OR and the entries for individual stories to show what I mean. In case it is reverted, this version is here. Clearly, it now needs the addition of sourced material discussing each trait, when it appeared, where, and how common. I hope people can see why I think this topic is not served well by a "list of" approach.OsFish (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum I should have linked to the list policy page WP:SAL to make clear my policy-based argument for a move from a list article to a prose article. "Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list. Many stand-alone lists identify their content's format in their titles, beginning with descriptors such as "list of", "timeline of", or similar. " This means the title dictates a list of the sort that people citing WP:NOR object to. The title is not List of vampires but list of traits of vampires, so merely having a bluelink is not enough for inclusion. WP:SAL asks us to reflect on whether the selection of items in a list are "canonical", which, without secondary sources specifically naming them as such (in this case, a canonical example of a trait), is OR. It also requires OR to investigate and highlight the characteristics of each vampire to fill all the columns in a table. All in all, a prose article is better.OsFish (talk) 08:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @OsFish: Is there any particular reason why it would not be better at present to cover this in the existing articles (Vampire literature#Traits of vampires in fiction and/or Vampire#Description and common attributes) as suggested above, considering the brevity? TompaDompa (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @TompaDompa: That's a great question, and to be honest, I'm agnostic. Basically, I've changed my vote to move or delete because it seems clear that the list format is the problem. (It isn't how the literature covers it, it isn't a useful way of covering it, and it would unavoidably need substantial OR to not be a table with 90% cells saying "?") I think even the majority of keep !voters agree that the article as it stands is unacceptably packed full of OR given that they agree it should be founded on secondary sources instead. My suspicion is there is probably enough to get a decent article done if it's done in prose. If it stays as a list, it should be deleted. Such a table would be inappropriate in the main vampire article too.OsFish (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your 'attempted rescue' (already reverted) was basically equivalent to deletion. All you did was introduce a pointless procedural argument for keeping while agreeing with the deletionists' core idea that the current rendition is inadequate and that prose would be preferable. I imagine assessment of consensus will be made unnecessarily more difficult because of that. Nothing is preventing anyone from writing a decent paragraph or two on the subject of vampirism in fiction, and there's no reason why this should be done here, in this article, rather than anywhere else. Avilich (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Avilich: You may not be aware, but it is acceptable to try to improve an article while a deletion discussion is going on. "No original research" is not some bureaucratic rule, but a core principle of the encyclopedia, so removing it isn't a subversive act. I cut out the OR to show what the foundation of a properly sourced article on a list of the traits would look like (rather than an editor-sourced analysis of editor-selected vampires, as it currently is). I clearly stated that it was a starting point for further improvement. I openly invited people to revert if they objected to show that I was not trying to bypass the discussion. There is broad consensus among all !voters that there is too much OR in the article. (The notable exception is the person who reverted, whose argument for keep here is "a lot of people have put a lot of work into this", which is obviously not a policy-based argument). My edit only looked like deletion because of the sheer amount of OR.
Look at the arguments. The keep !votes are based on there being RS for the topic, the delete !votes are based on the table being horrible for various policy based reasons with many conceding that RS does exist. You yourself agree a prose form is better. By cutting out the OR from the table as is correct according to fundamental policy, if it happens to lay clear that prose is better (so change the title in a move), but we still get to keep the RS-based material, then doesn't that keep most people happy? Moving to another title is a common outcome of an AFD discussion. OsFish (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. There certainly seem to be enough secondary sources to support a stand-alone article or list, fulfilling WP:GNG. I don't really see how the structure should promote OR. However I think the transformation away from the table structure and move to Vampire traits in folklore and fiction as suggested by OsFish is a good idea. Daranios (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to WP:OR and slight WP:CONTENTFORK from the vampire article. The format is incredibly bizarre with no criteria for inclusion of traits or the ‘setting’ this is really just OR. No reason why these sources can’t be used to add to the vampire article. No need for this list form - smacks of fancruft. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure OR. Invites and appeals readers to insert more OR. For instance, in the appearance traits, Sesame Street, Count von Count is labelled reflection - No. The source is a youtube link. The page for Count von Count says "he has been seen with a reflection". Then in weakness traits, for D&D, under sunlight, label is "Fatal, but they will survive very short exposure". What if I change that to medium exposure. The whole thing is a mess. There will always be a "citation needed" and "disputed" tag for every label under every trait if one tries to verify this garbage. OsFish's arguments don't stand. This article simply cannot be improved. Most labels aren't verifiable. - hako9 (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2021 (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.
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. Sandstein 14:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Space stations and habitats in fiction

Space stations and habitats in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost entirely WP:OR and unreferenced with the exception of a few list entries. Despite having a valid subject, none of the info on the page is salvageable, and Space station#In fiction is barely expanded upon so a separate article isn't really necessary. Total listcruft and a collection of trivia. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Dreams and Nightmares of the High Frontier: The Response of Science Fiction to Gerard K. O'Neill's The High Frontier
  2. Small Worlds and Strange Tomorrows: The Icon of the Space Station in Science Fiction
  3. Islands in the Sky: The Space Station Theme in Modern Science Fiction
  4. Islands in the Sky: The Space Station Theme in Science Fiction Literature
  5. Visions of Space Habitation: from fiction to reality
  6. Living in space: From science fiction to the International Space Station
  7. Space, Architecture, and Science Fiction: An Architectural Interpretation of Space Colonization
  8. Host of Otherness: The Trope of the Urban Space Habitat and the Concept of Evil in Contemporary Science Fiction Media
  9. The Space Base and Science Fiction
  10. The Other Side of the Sky: An Annotated Bibliography of Space Stations in Science Fiction, 1869-1993
  11. Megastructures, Superweapons and Global Architectures in Science Fiction Computer Games
  12. The Space Station From Concept to Evolving Reality
  13. The idea of rendezvous: From space station to orbital operations in space-travel thought, 1895-1951
See also WP:BEFORE; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I concur with Andrew Davidson. While this article needs improvement, it isn't really a good candidate for deletion or merger. The other article's section on the subject could also be improved but, were this subject to be done right in that article, it would result in a split eventually. Better to improve the subject here. —¿philoserf? (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to List of space stations and habitats in fiction. The number of sources is simply vast and all of the useful content would be lost if we delete. Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't disagree that the number of sources is vast. But if there is no desire to want to improve it to a notable standard, that doesn't really mean anything. See WP:HEY. There has been a decent effort to expand it thus far though still not at the point it could not be merged yet. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Much as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), I have rewritten the article such that instead of having a list article that looks like this (pre-AfD version), we now have a prose article (which is admittedly rather brief) that looks like this. @Zxcvbnm, Julle, TTN, and LaundryPizza03: Do you consider this satisfactory? TompaDompa (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right now that would still merit a Merge from me, but if you keep expanding it I could probably be convinced to withdraw the nomination per WP:HEY. However, I must note that Earth in science fiction is still a stub, and the effort there was more of a token gesture to prevent it from being deleted than an actual attempt to improve it. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's currently no cohesion between the two topics on the page, so I still don't see any need for this page to exist. It's now been reduced to essentially being two semi-related stubs. Each parent article should be able to handle a healthy three paragraph section going over the topic, and I really don't see potential article to grow enough to justify its existence. Merging to each parent topic would be a fine alternative outcome. And if it turns out there is more potential, there is literally not a single downside to it because they can just be split out again, compared to the alternative of just letting this sit here and never improve. TTN (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @TTN: I agree about the habitats part. Stuff on habitats needs to be moved to Space habitat#In fiction rather than be here, as they are two different things with separate articles and no pressing need to combine them together besides making the article look bigger and more notable. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Zxcvbnm and TTN: I have to say that I am not much of a fan of "in fiction" or "in popular culture" sections. I usually find that if there isn't enough coverage in WP:Reliable sources to warrant a separate prose article, having such a section in the main article is also a bad idea (and conversely: if there is enough to write such a section, it would be better to turn it into a separate article). Anyway, I've expanded the article some more, and it now looks like this (and I intend to expand it more—Dreams and Nightmares of the High Frontier: The Response of Science Fiction to Gerard K. O'Neill's The High Frontier is quite a gold mine).
          I take issue with the assertion that my edits to Earth in science fiction were more of a token gesture to prevent it from being deleted than an actual attempt to improve it because it's still a stub. It would be trivial to make the article longer by adding the examples used by the cited sources, but I don't think that would improve the article since I think a prose article about the topic is the way to go (rather than a list of examples of the topic), and I think the current state of the article is about as good as it's possible to make it with the current sources. I see three possible ways of expanding that article:
          1. Adding examples (which I think is likely to become detrimental to the article's quality rather quickly unless it's done with the utmost care).
          2. Finding additional sources (which the AfD discussion showed wasn't altogether easy, although Andrew Davidson seems to have quite a knack for finding sources and might be able to help?).
          3. Expand what's written about the subtopics, perhaps in the way suggested by OsFish at Talk:Earth in science fiction#Suggestions for structure, which would presumably mean using WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.
          I'll have to think about that last one, since I'm not sure it would be a good idea. TompaDompa (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is now a completely different article than when this AfD was started. /Julle (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a WP:HEY case. A notable topic, and now without TVTropes-quality listcruft. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seem to be enough secondary sources to easily fullfill WP:GNG; actually the article already does fullfill that right now thanks to the efforts of TompaDompa. If it stays the length or is further expanded (a concern raised by ZXCVBNM when comparing to Earth in science fiction) is no one specific editor's responsibility and should have no bearing on the deletion decision, seeing that there still is secondary material to expand the article with. Whoever is unhappy with the article being to short can expand it. Actually, I am somewhat concerned that List of fictional space stations has been merged here and now all previous material has been removed. But it's still there in the history, so it's a problem that could be solved with effort. Looking at the former content, I think the allegations of original research were hardly warranted, as by the nature of the topic, primary sources were present for almost everything. Lastly, for the wish to split out content on space habitats raised by TTN: I don't have a strong opinion against it, I think myself that the current title is a bit cluncky, but in the end I would prefer to keep this together: As the article, based on a secondary source, already says, the two concepts are often not clearly distniguished. Take the prominent example of Babylon 5: It clearly fits the definition of a space habitat, but in its fiction is consistently called a space station. Where would you put that? Or include it under both headings, which would be no problem given WP:NOTPAPER, but also an unneccesary WP:CONTENTFORK. Daranios (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an article has so little content that it remains a stub, then it's better off merged, not staying as a standalone article, then split off later if it grows to sufficient size. Leaving merge worthy content there, simply to stop it from being deleted, is gaming the system a little.
    • As far as Babylon 5 goes, we should always go with what the sources say over the judgement of individual editors. If the sources call it a space station all the time, it should go under space stations, unless we can find a source saying that it's really a space habitat and that the label of space station is wrong. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy calls it a space habitat whereas The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction calls it a space station, for the record. Having read some sources about space stations and space habitats in fiction, I get the impression that they don't necessarily distinguish between the concepts (which may very well be in contrast to sources about these concepts in the real world). TompaDompa (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Zxcvbnm: I think the article was beyond a stub then, is more now, and will be still farther beyond a stub if TompaDompa's plans come to pass (thanks!). So no reason to merge. As said above, the example of Babylon 5 shows us that "There's currently no cohesion between the two topics on the page" is not correct: The cohesion is that the terms have been used interchangeably in fiction. Splitting them would, like in this instance, force us to make editorial judgments when there is no need for this. Daranios (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I recommend that this nom is withdrawn; the old article was a mess and I'd have voted delete for it, but it's gone, next to nothing remains and the new version looks fine and I'd vote keep. Anyway, this article is totally new and would need a new nom since old votes for old version no longer apply. Thank you to User:TompaDompa for rewriting this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Concurrence. I was for conversion to a list. I now concur with Piotrus about the article, the AfD, and the work done by TompaDompa. —¿philoserf? (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thanks to improvements since the article was nominated. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:53, 14 August 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Science_fiction_and_fantasy&oldid=1037985956"