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 Forgotten Army

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

Fails WP:NBOOK, lacks WP:SIGCOV, barely any edits. AFDing instead of WP:BLARing bcs name can be confused with other things, including those in the hatnote DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:28, 3 December 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) 10:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Time

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

Fails WP:NBOOK, lacks WP:SIGCOV, barely any edits. AFDing instead of WP:BLARing bcs name can be confused with other things DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:27, 3 December 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) 10:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Living Dad

AfDs for this article:

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

The article has a source from The Unauthorized Guide to Doctor Who Novels which seems solid. It has a source to Bibliography of Australian Literature which isn't WP:SIGCOV just verifying the credits. Now the reason I bring this specifically up to AFD is to formulate a consensus on the following. It has three sources to Doctor Who Magazine not published by the BBC but by Panini Comics. Despite this it is officially lisenced and maintains a close relationship with the BBC. Are these reviews good enough to establish notability and count towards WP:NBOOK Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, Austria, and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avengers: The Initiative characters

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

Fails WP:NOTPLOT lacking any sources besides primary ones. A pure plot summary list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avengers: The Initiative - The central and major characters that appeared in the series are already listed and described on the main article. Overly specific plot information on minor characters really should not be included on a character list, and when that is cleaned out, there is no longer any reason for a split out article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rorschacma. An unneeded split off the main article, but it has a valid target in a broader article that better covers this information. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:SIGCOV. Split articles are not exempt from policies. If splitting would create a failing article, the answer is to clean up and trim, not split. Jontesta (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Churchill Years (audio drama series)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Its almost all plot with the only real world info being about the release dates Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Radio, Politics, and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish as the natural target (I wonder why this is not already present there). This appears in secondary sources like here and here, so I believe this should have a place on Wikipedia, but I don't think there's enough for a stand-alone article. I wonder why this was brought to AfD rather than being a merge discussion in the first place. Daranios (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish per Daranios (definitely strange that its missing from there) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above arguments. Not enough for a separate article but definitely worth having the content preserved elsewhere. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pond Life (Doctor Who)

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

Fails WP:NTVEP all sources are primary and my before turned up nothing usable Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Who series 7. That article already has a summary of the plot, and any relevant production and reception information should be added over there; I've expanded a little here, but there's not much. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge any relevant content to the series 7 page. As I said elsewhere, this borderline fails WP:NTV. It's a bit better with the expanded content, but doesn't necessarily appear to be significant enough that it necessitates its own article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge per TheDoctorWho. Better covered as part of a wider subject given the lack of coverage on the subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge - as suggested above. The shorts were essentially a promotional piece for Series 7, so that is where they should be covered. Dunarc (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per TheDoctorWho, does not stand on its own. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arab speculative fiction

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

None of the sources used here discuss "Arab speculative fiction" as a grouping, only similar but not the same topic. If sources do exist on the topic nothing here is built around them so it is entirely OR at present. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Middle East. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction has an entry for "Arabic SF". TompaDompa (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there's e.g. Ian Campbell's Arabic Science Fiction (2019). The topic, in itself, is certainly notable. /Julle (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa @Julle But as is, every single word in the article is cited to sources not about the article topic - entirely OR. At that point it is WP:TNT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the purposes of notability, are science and speculative fiction equivalent? I know they're intertwined but I am uncertain. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. Speculative fiction is, as commonly understood, broader. Science fiction is a part of speculative fiction. That is, I'd argue an article about Arabic science fiction is relevant for an an article on Arabic speculative fiction, but it's not entirely the same. In a situation where all reliable sources would talk about Arabic science fiction, it'd be far better to move it to Arabic science fiction. /Julle (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above sources, but will be adding the appropriate CTOP notice to the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens As is, nothing in the article is salvageable. So unless someone wants to rewrite it and change the scope this is a TNT case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TNT doesn't apply, and I wish people would actually read the essay before quoting it. Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - there is nothing salvageable for a topic that is notable under the current article. To comply with policy from what is here it would have to be reduced to a sentence: Arabic science fiction is science fiction written in Arabic (or related to Arabic culture, or something). There is nothing encyclopedic about a one sentence definition. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Article issues can be solved through the normal editing process, and by discussing issues on the talk page. Oppose WP:TNT deletion.4meter4 (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not persuaded that this is WP:TNT-worthy, and I'm not persuaded that the topic isn't self-evidently notable. I don't think this should be moved to Arabic science fiction either, as that implies "SF in the Arabic language" and this is about "SF by Arabic people". At present, I don't see anything wrong with this that can't be solved by normal editing, and I don't think it's a problem to leave it here untouched until someone comes to pick it up. It may be worth revisiting this question once this part of the encyclopedia isn't such a giant empty hole, but for now, it seems to be all we have to fill an important gap. -- asilvering (talk) 01:36, 3 December 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]
It's not a term that barely anyone would search, but User:Redrose64 has shown it's unique (even though no reliable source mentions that, the uniqueness is evident at a glance). Redirect to Doctor Who missing episodes DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Who missing episodes, redirects being cheap, and all. While there is obviously no content for a merge here, the "missing episodes" article does very briefly touch on the content of the set. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirects are cheap, but "Lost in Time" is so insignificant, searching for it with Doctor Who appended gives results mostly for the game of the same name(and there are lot of missing episode boxsets, so this isn't special. No need for redirecting. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoctorWhoFan91: This one is special, see my keep !vote below. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This DVD set was unique, as it gathers together in one package all of the odd episodes which couldn't justifiably be released as a single-story DVD. The criterion at the time that it was compiled was that if a story had more than half of its episodes in the BBC archives, it would get a standalone release; if it had 50% or fewer, the episodes went into Lost in Time, together with any associated clips. Also included was all surviving material for those stories where no complete episodes remained. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for mentioning this, as this info is not at either page. Though, is there a reliable source for this? I couldn't find one in a google search. Also, still would not meet WP:GNG, so it should a redirect at best. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some time between 2004 and 2009, I found that information at one or more of the following - I only recorded access dates for a few of them:
BBC Shop

DVD.CO.UK

Doctor Who on DVD (accessed 2 April 2008)

DVD Times

Find DVD

Doctor Who Restoration Team

Time Rotor Fault Locator (accessed 28 July 2008)

Time Rotor Hidden Danger (accessed 31 July 2008)

The TARDIS Library
All are now dead except the last one. IIRC, the Doctor Who Restoration Team link gave the most comprehensive information, hopefully it's been archived somewhere. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked all of them on the Wayback Machine- a couple are dead, but the ones with archived versions do not mention this info (though looking through the list does make it clear that its true). Doctor Who missing episodes actually does mention it, but its unreferenced. Also, its the only significant bit about it, with all necessary info already at DW missing episodes- a redirect at best. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64 Sure, the release was unique, but being a unique release doesn't automatically indicate a subject is notable standalone. All of your links have been to fan-sites, fan projects, and shopping sites. None of these are reliable, secondary coverage which shows this subject is notable. Regardless of its release status, it needs coverage to justify being a standalone article, and none of that has been shown yet. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reliable source for the orphaned episode mention- [1], Lost in Time, a triple DVD set containing ‘orphaned’ episodes from the series. Redrose64 - It's still not enough for a 'keep'. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a bit of trouble parsing the meaning, but I think Who's 50 p. 54 backs up the summary of the approach for content selection of these DVDs by Redrose64. Daranios (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have arguments to Delete, Keep and Redirect this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Liz I think the consensus is "Redirect"- I changed my !vote to redirect (prior to the relisting), the nom is fine with a redirect, and Redrose64's !vote does not show it meets WP:GNG, only that it's unique. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can anyone with more knowledge say if the chapter "Lost in Time" in Alan Kistler's Doctor Who: A History, starting p. 81, refers to this DVD set or not? Daranios (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not; it's just a two-page subsection of a different chapter. It addresses the missing episodes generally, but not this DVD set. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doctor Who missing episodes for now: I've seen mentions in a number of secondary sources like The Doctor Who Error Finder, Who's 50, p. 54, Die Dechiffrierung von Helden, p. 155, which would not support a stand-alone article, but would lend themselves to some expansion of the brief mention at the target. Daranios (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:SIGCOV. There is a paragraph on the DVD set in: [2]. There is a lot of coverage sprinkled throughout this academic book: [3] See pages 34, 45, 51, 65, 69, 70, 80, 83, and 98 for coverage of Lost in Time. See pages 13, 15, 42, 45, 57, 64, 68, 69, 71, 72, 82, and 83 for coverage of The Missing Years which was a documentary unique to this DVD set. Pages 81-82 of this book cover this DVD set. There is also coverage in this journal article: [4] 4meter4 (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Through Time is decent, but is written by Andrew Cartmel, a former script editor for the show, so I'm not sure how separate that is from coverage of the program. The Doctor Who Error Finder is primarily trivial mentions; it only refers to the CD as a source for their coverage of missing episodes, and does not actually dictate discussion to the CD that could be considered significant coverage. Doctor Who: A History only briefly mentions the CD; the section "Lost in Time" is used as the name of the section covering missing episodes, and does not focus on the CD bar brief mention of its existence. I can't access the journal; could you get a quote of what mention of Lost in Time it has?

Regardless of the above, none of this really dictates the problem of this being a separately notable subject of Doctor Who missing episodes. Per Wikipedia:NOPAGE, "Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page." Lost in Time is inherently a missing episodes collection, and all coverage of it is in relation to missing episodes and how to view them. This is inherently a topic that makes more sense covered with the context of the missing episodes and why being able to watch them is important, especially since a lot of the article currently used is inherently about the wider missing episodes topic already covered at the main missing episodes article. What coverage that exists can be merged without issue per Daranios. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions