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

The Spectre of Lanyon Moor

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

fails WP:GNG unsourced since 2013 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of Blue Fire

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

Fails WP:GNG prod opposed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in Time (Doctor Who)

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

A box set that released various Doctor Who serials that had episodes missing. The article is predominantly uncited and contains almost entirely primary citations, and a brief BEFORE turns up very little outside of watch guides for missing episodes. I can see a redirect to Doctor Who missing episodes as an AtD, but overall this is a largely non-notable DVD box set release not separately notable from the concept of missing episodes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; not even significant enough for a redirect. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Delete Self-published author. Almost no visibility (I searched library holdings; copies in bookstores; reviews in standard sources). The Publisher Weekly article is nice, but not sufficient for notability. Lamona (talk) 18:44, 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]
Partial Merge: I've added a source for I-CON's audience award (but that is not in itself neither sufficient nor likely to be overwhelmingly significant). It does not appear in Will Brooker's "Using the Force" (2002) despite what GBooks suggests. I'd take an actual review on theforce.net (non-forum) but there doesn't seem to be one. At best it looks like it could be a weak keep, but it's not there yet. Of the current sources, the Otero&Redondo book is a short descriptive para and has no independent analysis/review. Nor do the The Age stories. I can't read the Herald Sun article but it appears likely to be similar (?). I'm seeing very few hits for "Fan Films Quarterly", and not clear to me if they should be treated as an RS, and how much weight should be given to their opinion even if they are. La Muy's praise is limited to stating it has (GTranslated) "a more than successful setting". Datebook is a short but solid entry in a listicle by a freelancer, but it's currently the only thing which is solid. I've taken a stab at a merge here. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 14:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by Hydronium Hydroxide so far seems the best solution to me. Daranios (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions