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

Yavin

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

This article is a non notable fork of Yavin 4 where the Battle of Yavin actually takes place, making it the third article covering basically the same material. Most source talk about Yavin 4 with only trivial mentions for Yavin itself. (Probably because Yavin appears on screen for a few seconds.) Jontesta (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. Jontesta (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yavin 4, the actual important location in the franchise, and very likely what people are actually looking for if they search for "Yavin". Per WP:NOPAGE, these should really be covered together, and Yavin 4 is the obvious primary topic here - case in point, the vast majority of the content of this article is actually talking about Yavin 4. There are some sourced bits of information here, such as the history of its development in the first part of the "Depiction" section, that are not present in the Yavin 4 article, so a bit of a merge should occur. Rorshacma (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pandoran biosphere

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

Fork of Fictional universe of Avatar. We do not need two articles about the same thing. Both are doubtfully notable based on trivial mentions but I believe that Fictional universe of Avatar has more upside as more sources talk generally about the setting of Avatar. Jontesta (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 02:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventuress of Henrietta Street

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

LACKS WP: NBOOK, refs, reliable external links, plot summary, WP: SIGCOV; should be deleted, or merged or redirected into Faction Paradox DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons (though the last one has a plot summary; however, the other issues still persist):

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some, merge rest. The obvious redirect is Eighth Doctor Adventures, but there are various merge choices. Faction Paradox works for The Adventuress of Henrietta Street, but the individual authors may make more sense for some material. I’ve just added a citation to Unnatural History, which is the most developed article and I suggest worth keeping. Bondegezou (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh No It Isn't!

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

LACKS WP: NBOOK, refs, reliable external links, reviews, WP: SIGCOV; should probably be deleted, but if not, merged or redirected into Bernice Summerfield DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Virgin New Adventures, which is the series of books it was published in. Bondegezou (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve done some work on the article, expanding it and adding some citations. Will try to do some more. Bondegezou (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my earlier comments, I've done some work on the article. It is, if I do say so myself, improved and better addresses WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG concerns, although others will have to decide if it's enough. (And more can certainly be done.) I favour keeping. If not kept, there's chunk of text under "Writing and development" that would usefully go in the Virgin New Adventures article, and maybe some other text and a citation on the audio adaptation that would usefully go to the Bernice Summerfield article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bernice Summerfield, which is a more focused redirect target given this book focuses primarily on the character. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Romance

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

LACKS WP: NBOOK, refs, external links, plot summary, WP: SIGCOV DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Virgin New Adventures, which is the series of books it was published in. Bondegezou (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Empire (Asimov)

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable fork of Foundation universe. This one has an abundance of material without proper references making it unsuited for an article and appropriate for deletion. WP:BEFORE indicated that Foundation universe might be a broader topic with some WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foundation universe, mostly WP:ALLPLOT with lackluster context of why it is independently important from the universe itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foundation universe - Almost entirely made up of overly detailed, in-universe plot information on one part of the Foundation series' setting. There is no indication that a split article is necessary, and the topic would be best covered as part of the article on the Foundation universe's overall plot and setting per WP:NOPAGE. What little there is here that is non-plot summaries and sourced to material aside from the books themselves is not great, and I don't see anything worth merging, but Redirecting would preserve the history if anyone thinks something should be moved over. Rorshacma (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Dudes

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

Nominating because I do not believe it fits WP:GNG. TheHatster (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator has not evaluated the sources already existing in the article. Toughpigs (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems at least two very good sources have mentions of it, which is close enough to call it notable. I have some pity on this, as it seems like a bit of internet arcana that should be noted somewhere. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with @Bluethricecreamman it's a shame that there isn't better resources for these kind of articles. But it does have just enough to be notable. Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transition Dreams

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

Fails the books notability guideline. The article is based mostly on primary sources and has only one independent review, which does not establish the notability of the subject. A quick check before the nomination did not turn up any more useful sources. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Australia. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware of the problems with the article. I created it during a time when I still had the impression, that fulfilling notability is not considered as important if the author is very well known. Egan's novel Schild's Ladder for example up until a few months back didn't even have a single reference and almost completely consisted of only plot summary. It still contains not even a single review (although I intend to add the one I've found for the german article soon). The same holds for "TAP". I only realized afterwards that it was because the articles were created in 2003 and 2007 respectively, when the guidelines in their current form probably didn't even exist yet. Afterwards, I tried to improve some articles already created, but didn't find much more to add to establish notatbility. Hence if the article gets deleted, I'm okay with that. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuel Adrian Antz: Thanks for your response, I appreciate your candor about the subject's notability. To save some time, would you be okay with this discussion being speedily closed under CSD G7? Full deletion is probably not necessary per the alternative to deletion below. I also just came across "Induction" (short story) and "The Safe-Deposit Box" today, and it would save time if the same could be done for that article instead of an AfD nomination. Let me know what you think. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Luminous (book), the Egan book this story is part of (and that the above mentioned review is for). No indepedent notablity. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts of India

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

Fails WP:NBOOK tagged for notability since Januray of last year. One unreliable review Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and India. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, I noticed the same thing, was gonna AfD myself. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Series Adventures#Tenth Doctor. Mr Sitcom (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Methos Chronicles

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

There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Note: there's a story by Don Anderson also titled "The Methos Chronicles", but it seems to be unrelated to this project, besides sharing the same character and name. And then there's also a "Highlander zine, "The Methos Chronicles," brought to you by Carol Ann Liddiard and Sheila Marie Lane", again, seemingly unrelated. toweli (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Internet. toweli (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mesklin

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

Non-notable article about a location composed of unreliable or primary sources. For WP:Before, a search showed only trivial mentions and in-universe plot summaries, without significant coverage or reception. Jontesta (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mission of Gravity. Some part of the text can be salvaged, and the novel is the main "user" of Mesklin. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mesklin gets a fair amount of discussion in literature about science fiction (mostly in the context of Mission of Gravity). It is generally considered a (or even the) prototypical example of hard science fiction worldbuilding. Some examples:
- The Dictionary of Science Fiction Places p. 199
- The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction p. 87
- The Science in Science Fiction p. 56
- How Space Physics Really Works: Lessons from Well-Constructed Science Fiction p. 31
- A Companion to Science Fiction p. 195

There are also things like "Applying Science to Fiction: A Look at the Fictional Planet Mesklin" (which I am unfortunately not able to read the full text of), and much, much more is available by simply searching for "Mesklin" at the Internet Archive (I haven't read it in full, but the first hit leads to Donald M. Hassler's chapter "The Irony in Hal Clement's World Building" in Science Fiction Dialogues, which covers Mesklin for several pages). I don't think WP:Notability is seriously in question here, and there's certainly an argument to be made that the fictional planet gets more attention as the point of focus in the secondary literature than the story it first appeared in. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Clarityfiend to Mission of Gravity. WP:BEFORE shows that the reception of the novel its science are covered in the same scope. Both articles are under sourced and will improve through a merge, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have located a fair number of sources providing coverage of Mesklin and have begun the process of rewriting and expanding the article based on these sources. Based on what I have found, I think merging this article with the Mission of Gravity article would be misguided. At minimum, I would suggest relisting this discussion to give more time for rewriting and expanding the article so we can make as informed a decision on the matter as possible. TompaDompa (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mission of Gravity as not requiring a split. Coverage of it in secondary sources appears trivial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mission of Gravity: per Clarityfiend. I did find some coverage (particularly from Harvard Uni), which is why I'd support a merge rather then a flat-out deletion. Sir MemeGod  20:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mesklin is also the name of the book series comprised of Mission of Gravity, Star Light and Close to Critical, so it could hypothetically be reframed to stay. However, the latter two books show the weight and detail that should be given to the planetory setting, meaning the current article is excessive and relies to much on WP:PRIMARY sources to really stand on its own. I've also read the summary of MoG: It's the science that drives the story, not the characters. The world is the plot.. In that way, I am leaning towards merge the sole planet article but keep as a book series article. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced a series article is super needed vs. just a section in Mission of Gravity detailing the book's sequels. Ultimately Mission of Gravity just needs some major expansion to detail its apparent importance, as right now it's start-class. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator I am good merging to Mission of Gravity. Jontesta (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions