Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy

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:

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.
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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Science fiction and fantasy

M. R. Mathias

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

Poorly sourced. Fails WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and Science fiction and fantasy. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found coverage of him in one independent source, a Publishers Weekly article.[1] It looks like all of his books are self-published. I didn't find any other significant coverage of him or his books. Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Schazjmd (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The CNN source used in the article is a RS, and the Publisher's Weekly cited above seems ok; two sources about an author, that's more than what we see in some articles about authors here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN ref is an iReport, user-generated content ("citizen journalism"). Schazjmd (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
probably delete (weak delete) I didn't really conduct that much research, though it doesn't seem like he's that notable. not significant coverage by major outlets, review websites. has zero books that are so ubiquit that they show up everywhere, including LibraryHub's bookmarks, kirkus, publishers weekly, end of the year lists. no major literary awards according to isfdb and sfadb. even nominations. best he has is nominations for locus, which isn't good enough to keep unless he wins one. royal not listed as a 2011 nominee for locus award for scifi, fantasy, ya, first, or any category here https://www.sfadb.com/Locus_Awards_2011 Create a template (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(unsigned misplaced comment) I can confirm that all of his novels were self-published. The publishing company is Mathias Publishing. He owns this company as a fictitious business name. The business is not registered in his home state of Oklahoma. I am in favor of deleting the article as it does not meet the requirements for ‘notable’. I apologize if I’m not using proper editor quotes and references. I contributed to this article 8 years ago correcting misinformation and guesswork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biouxtai (talk • contribs) 02:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC) moved into place by 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book was not nominated, that source was one individual persons votes. Not the nominations list. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[2] Actual voting form that allowed write-in votes. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really feel bad for arguing for a delete since the guy has gone through so much and come out the other side, but he just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. When I looked back around 2020-ish, I couldn't find anything and didn't find anything now either. The CNN source is from iCNN, which allows users to submit articles. If the article gains enough attention CNN might pick it up (in which case it would become usable as a source) but that wasn't the case here. I wasn't certain about the Locus Poll Award, but as Duffbeerforme stated, this seems to be a Locus Award where voters can submit their own write-in candidates. This is different from the other Locus Awards, where the list is chosen from books the publication has reviewed and is far more selective. Now if they'd won the award that would certainly be something to contribute to notability, but that wasn't the case here either.

I really hope that the guy is doing well and continues to do well, because overcoming the stuff he's been through is frankly amazing. It's just unfortunate that he never gained coverage in places Wikipedia would see as reliable and counting towards notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NAUTHOR. References are predominately to primary sources. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regeneration (Doctor Who)

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

This article reads like a FANDOM page in its entirety. It fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it does not explain why this specific plot element is encyclopedic and is almost entirely plot summary. It is also already heavily detailed in Time Lord#Regeneration, rendering an article length treatment unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Speedy Keep: It very much does not fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it explains how the process came about out-of-universe, and how it has changed. It could be way better, and needs better referencing too, which would need a separate article, so the topic does not its own article. Also, this AfD is doubly strange, because even if failed the above parameters, it would still be a redirect and not deleted; and that the latter section is sourced mostly by primary sources and is way too overly detailed (and needs heavy editing to be encyclopedic). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Time Lord#Regeneration per WP:NOPAGE. As a sub-topic of the concept of Time Lords as a whole, it should (and already is at great length) be covered as part of that article rather than split out. When you take away the massive amounts of overly detailed, in-universe plot information, then there is no need for this to be split out from the parent article, and that parent article already covers the concept of Regeneration in great detail. Rorshacma (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Time Lord#Regeneration. There is some material in "Conceptual history" that should be included at Time Lord. The Regeneration (Doctor Who) article is long and well-developed (over 10,000 words), but there are entire sections with no inline citations to secondary sources. The material in sections like "River Song's regenerations" is backed up only by the in-text citations to the episodes of Doctor Who, which are all fictional primary sources. Those sections can't pass WP:NOTPLOT without original research. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least portions of that section could be sourced to [3] and [4]. McYeee (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concerns of original research should be raised on the talk page, and clear original research should be boldly removed from the article, but that would still leave us with a substantial article. The topic has gotten sigcov. See A Brief History of 'Doctor Who's Regeneration, Doctor Who is now immortal, reveals the BBC, The day Doctor Who changed face – and transformed TV for ever. McYeee (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The actual process of regeneration is discussed less there than the significance of Doctor Who becoming a shapeshifting entity, thus making things largely about The Doctor. I am not convinced this indicates notability for the regeneration process itself, as reincarnation as a plot mechanic surely was not invented with Doctor Who. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "Doctor Who becoming a shapeshifting entity", do you mean "regeneration being introduced as a power the Doctor has"? If so isn't that coverage of both the character and the plot device? Why should we see such coverage more primarily about the character?

Reincarnation as a plot mechanism certainly predates Doctor Who, but the particular use of it "was very much uncharted territory. Up to this point, most changes of actor had either been simply ignored on-screen, or been done by hastily bringing in new characters to cover for an absence" (ibid). The LA Times makes the point that regeneration is different from what we see in other media as well: " Can you imagine if James Gandolfini had been replaced as Tony Soprano every few seasons?"[5].

If your objection is that every source that's about regeneration is also about the Doctor, then doesn't this mean that divergence should be deleted because ever source about it is also about fields (i.e., scalar fields, vector fields and, more generally, tensor fields), that rigor mortis should be deleted because every source about rigor mortis is about death, and that presidency of Abraham Lincoln should be deleted because every source about it is about him? I suspect that your answer is "no" for at least one of those, I can't see what makes this case different. McYeee (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. While this might be notable, SIGCOV and OR are major issues. I can see this, much shortened, as a section of the Time Lords or such, but right now this is fancrufty trivia that begs for WP:TNT treatment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Allegiance

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Previously at AfD in 2006, the article claims that the film has "garnered major media coverage and was screened at numerous local and international film festivals to great response". No actual sources to confirm this. No sources were provided at the previous AfD. The best claim to notability is being a finalist at Australian Effects & Animation Festival (AEAF): [6]. NFILM doesn't mention being a finalist as an indication of notability, only a major award win. Even if this was counted towards notability (which I'm not), it wouldn't be enough on its own. Suggesting redirection to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits. Mika1h (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Australia. Mika1h (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources are kind of slow going since the bulk were done in the early to mid 2000s, but I'm finding evidence that this did get some coverage back in the day. I found some coverage of the film in The Age - the overall article was about SW fandom but the film is covered in some depth. I did find a copy of the fan magazine on Lulu, but you have to pay for it. I'm leaning towards this being notable - at the very least it should be mentioned somewhere because the sources that I'm finding tend to focus on it as one of the best examples of Star Wars fan film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chaotic characters

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

Could not find sources on the characters nor the list as a whole. There is some content that can be merged with Chaotic (TV series), but a lot of it is WP:PLOTSUMMARY. Conyo14 (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim appropriately. The subject of the list is Chaotic (TV series), so notability is not in question, except by editors who dispute the first half of the statement. Nothing stops you from cleaning up plot summary now, which will need to happen in any event. Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the appropriate trimming suggestion that was brought up by @Jclemens:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTPLOT are failed by this list, since it is totally unreferenced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm. Totally unreferenced and fails WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just so everyone is aware, I agree that Chaotic (TV series) is notable. The characters themselves do not have notability on their own or as part of a list, hence the AfD. Conyo14 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm. The main characters are already covered on the main article for the series, and due to the lack of sourcing and the fact that the characters listed here aside from the main characters are all completely minor characters that should not be listed here, appropriate trimming would essentially mean that a separate list would not be needed. Rorshacma (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting but the consensus is leaning towards Deletion right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 11 November 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 keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of horror fiction writers

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NLIST. This article is just a simple list without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit, and no WP:SIGCOV indicating this list is discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Article contains original research as well with many questionable entries where the corresponding article doesn't even mention horror fiction writer. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, once suitably pruned and referenced to address the objections given above. There are certainly plenty of lists from WP:RS of top 10, top 100, etc. horror books, and that might be a good place to start. See User:The Anome/Draft/List of horror writers for a fairly defensible list of writers, each cited to at least one WP:RS as either being notable for being a horror writer or as the author of at least one notable work of horror fiction. — The Anome (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Lists of people, and Science fiction and fantasy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, navigational lists like this don't have to be an encyclopedic topic (and nor do they even need to be referenced), they're here to help the reader find pre-existing articles on their members. This list is helpful to the reader who wants to know the biographical details of that author they remember reading last year, "...who's name began with a B... or was it a C... Martha someone??". Elemimele (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: and if the revised version was to be enhanced by nationality and dates, like the current version, that would add value as well. I'd also point out that the topic of horror authors has been discussed in many published works, eg. to name just the first two hits of Google Books, ISBN 9780786462490, ISBN 9781587150111... — The Anome (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not much of a fan of navigational lists in general, inasmuch as they oftentimes aren't well suited to their intended purpose and don't have well-thought-out WP:LISTCRITERIA, but this seems like a rather defensible one both in terms of scope and design (the real solution would be some kind of technical solution that would make maintaining these kinds of lists manually unnecessary, but that's a separate discussion). Being a navigational list and thus being restricted to entries with stand-alone articles per WP:CSC keeps this from expanding unboundedly as some lists are wont to do, and entries having only the minimal biographical information keeps it from becoming bloated with a bunch of WP:Original research commentary on the entries as is unfortunately also common on list articles (as long as the entries stick to it, at least). The corresponding category (Category:Horror writers) appears to contain a few hundred articles on writers in its various sub-categories (I could, admittedly, be way off in that estimate), so it shouldn't get so long as to necessitate a split or similar. As for inclusion criteria, I might suggest a simple "described as a horror writer by WP:Reliable sources" or something along those lines. TompaDompa (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: TompaDompa and I have now extensively reworked this list article into a version that is now fully sourced and purged of excess fluff. The criterion for inclusion is now "notable writer who has published significant work in the horror field" (notability of the author to be shown by the existence of a properely sourced WP article, and the significance of the work by the cite given here, eg. one or more of their horror works being the subject of WP:RS that describes it as such, or the presence of the work/works in a "best of" horror writing list published by a WP:RS.) — The Anome (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't really take credit for much more than working on the formatting... TompaDompa (talk) 15:45, 4 November 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