Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

[edit]

Pete Tyler

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Pete Tyler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A side character in Doctor Who. The only real hits I can find on this guy that are semi-strong are reviews for Father's Day (Doctor Who); most hits for subsequent appearances are either brief, trivial mentions, or purely plot summary. The only semi-strong hit I found was this: [1], which not only is solely about his appearance in Father's Day, but is also just the character being used as an example in the setup to the book's larger point. The character himself is not the subject of discussion here, and even if you did consider this WP:SIGCOV, this is the only strong hit I could find that does not fall into one of the other pratfalls above. Given the bulk of the coverage relates to Pete's role in Father's Day, per WP:NOPAGE, and the fact there's not much SIGCOV for his subsequent appearances, I'd suggest an AtD redirect to Father's Day, as that article is likely going to be the most helpful for understanding who the character is, and subsequent appearances of the character are inherently variations of the one who appeared in that episode. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What pure plot summary RS'es did you find? Remember, plot summaries are transformative and valid secondary sources per WP:PSTS. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleon (character)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Chameleon (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm electing to re-nominate this for deletion after it was nominated a few years back. Though I participated in the first discussion, I wasn't particularly adept in these discussions, but even now I still feel this doesn't meet the notability guidelines. The bulk of the votes for keeping were WP:ITSIMPORTANT votes, and of the sources identified, the bulk of them were either plot summaries, trivial mentions, or low quality WP:VALNET sources. Searches still yield absolutely nothing in the way of WP:SIGCOV for this character. This character just doesn't have independent notability from other Spider-Man villains, regardless of how many assertions are made that the character is important. Any of the brief, one sentence pieces of scattered commentary can easily be slotted into the Chameleon's list entry at List of Marvel Comics characters: C#Chameleon. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw for now. Been thinking over the comments and feel this is better handled as a merge discussion as opposed to an AfD. While I do not believe this article is notable, I believe there's likely a better venue for discussing this in this case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reaffirming my previous Keep based on the sources found during the previous AfD. Also, remove the notability tag from the top of the article, since the nominator appears to be out of step in thinking this isn't notable. --RL0919 (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Brothers in Silk

[edit]
Twelve Brothers in Silk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A minor set of characters from DC Comics. A search yields quite literally nothing bar trivial mentions in announcements and VALNET listicles, and the current article cites no sources whatsoever. Clearly non-notable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect per above. There is a basic WP:GNG failure but redirect is good for the search term. Archrogue (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm going to have to agree with Pokelego999 above that Redirecting really doesn't work in this case. The group is not mentioned in the target article at all so having it redirect there just would not make sense for anyone searching for the term. And given that this article has zero sources, and the general complete lack of notability of the group, any kind of a merge would not be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Black Widow supporting characters

[edit]
List of Black Widow supporting characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has heavy overlap with Black Widow (Natasha Romanova); the bulk of the characters on this list are covered in-depth at Natasha's article already, and those that aren't seem to have little relevance to Natasha's character, as many of them are only here due to being affiliated once or twice with the character instead of being important, recurring characters in the Black Widow mythos. All major coverage of Black Widow's supporting characters is already present at the Black Widow article. There is no real reason for a split here that isn't just WP:CRUFT, and there's nothing to merge since every source in this article is a PRIMARY citation to comic strips. A viable AtD is to the supporting characters section at the Natasha Romanova article, where this content is discussed in greater depth than it is at this article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Castles of Orbaal

[edit]
Castles of Orbaal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single ref on the page, nothing else found to show that the notability criteria for inclusion have been met JMWt (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Nico di Angelo Adventures

[edit]
The Nico di Angelo Adventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage about the series as a whole from independent reliable sources, which is precisely what you would expect from a planned series which currently contains one published book. Suggest redirecting to Rick Riordan#Camp Half-Blood Chronicles per WP:CRYSTALBALL, or a similar target.

(Draftified for the same reason a week ago, the sources added to argue against this are a WP:UGC (see WP:GOODREADS), the books' publisher, and the authors' website.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jolielover: Could you be convinced to change your stance to Keep based on the fact that the sources supporting the article are comparable to to the sources supporting The Trials of Apollo and The Heroes of Olympus, which are also series by Rick Riordan and have broad consensus in support of notability across many different language Wikipedias? --Justthefacts (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, sorry. For one, both those series have more than one book currently published - I think it's a bit iffy to have a page for this series as of now when there's only one book out. I'd really wait for either 3, or if it meets WP:GNG. Both of those series also have reliable sources calling it that, a series. I can't find the same for this one. And third, both series definitely meet WP:GNG, which this one doesn't. jolielover♥talk 16:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I had my druthers, I'd redirect both individual entries to the series page. We could probably justify either a series page or one for the first book - but not both at this point in time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore there are enough reliable sources that are secondary sources that are independent of the subject cited in the article to meet the standard for notability. --Justthefacts (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles on book series on Wikipedia have comparable supporting sources. If these articles are to be deleted, then it would mean that many more articles on books series would have to be deleted. --Justthefacts (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you give me a list Justthefacts, I can nominate them for deletion too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the question is, should articles on book series be deleted even if the books within those series are notable enough for Wikipedia articles? It would make sense that if books within a series are notable enough for Wikipedia articles, then so is the series itself. --Justthefacts (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I posted about this on the talk page, but if the individual entries are notable, the series inherits that notability. It's one of the rare instances of something that would, given that a series is made up of the individual parts. Of course there are limits - entries do not inherit notability from one another and in a case like this, where the series is a spinoff, it does not inherit notability from the parent series.
The issue here though, is that only the first entry is notable and there doesn't seem to be any substantial coverage for the second entry. There's some mention that it is forthcoming, but its largely primary. I was really only able to find a couple of sources that are actually about The Court of the Dead and they don't seem to be substantial enough to really justify a series page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ReaderofthePack: Thank you for that. That makes much more sense. As for sources, there are at least four sources ([3], [4], [5], [6]) that each have Wikipedia articles of their own (The Bookseller, Cosmopolitan, Yes! Weekly, Her Campus). --Justthefacts (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cosmo is a Q&A interview but has some prose parts so it's generally fine - I consider it to be usable. I can't read the Bookseller article so I'm not certain how in-depth that might be. I'm a little worried that it's a press release. Those are considered to be primary sources regardless of where they're posted, as they're put out by marketing companies hired by Riordan's publishers. On that note, Yes is a press release and as such, can't be used to establish notability - and notability is what is in question here.
Her Campus is probably not usable. The Wikipedia article initially makes it seem good, but at RS/N someone pointed out that they had 7,000+ contributors and 10 editors. In other words, the editors wouldn't be able to do much more than check for spelling and grammatical errors, if that. I don't see where the contributor herself would be considered a RS on Wikipedia - her writing seems to be limited to college papers and she hasn't received any major awards, nor been cited by other RS. In other words, we could probably only consider a Her Campus source as usable if it was written by a staff member or if the source was written by someone who would be considered an exception to the WP:SPS rule. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another source ([7]) that also has its own Wikipedia article (Comic Book Resources), although it does not focus solely on the upcoming book release. --Justthefacts (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Czarking0 (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've put a bit on the AfD talk page about series notability. Now, I'm aware that the question here isn't if series can inherit notability from books, but rather if a series page is warranted when there's only one entry.
In this scenario I would say that a series page would be warranted if there is substantial pre-release coverage for the second entry. Unfortunately the second entry's article gives off the impression that this wouldn't be the case, as the coverage for this is all about the first book. There's some content about a second book coming out, but it's not really substantial enough. To be perfectly honest, I would heavily recommend editing down the parts about the first book's success. Obviously the first book's success helped justify a sequel/series, but it's a little confusing at first glance - it comes across like it's about this book. It also puts a lot of undue weight on the first book, which will become even more clunky after the second book releases and gets its own sourcing/success. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The Sun and the Star, as this gives more info about the series than the author's page would be able to. The individual book is notable enough for its own article. If we had more coverage for the second entry then I could see justifying a series article, but I wasn't able to find much other than a notification that a sequel was in progress and a cover reveal. The second source does have some info from the authors about the writing/development process, but I don't know that this is all really enough to justify a series article at this point in time. I would want 2-4 more sources like the cover reveal before I could comfortably start arguing for retaining the series article. As it is, the sequel book doesn't pass NBOOK either at this point in time and should also redirect to the article for the first book. Once the second book releases and gains similar coverage, then a series page would make a bit more sense. If I'm being perfectly honest, this is one of those scenarios where a good alternative might be to just keep the series page and redirect both of the individual entries, as it could be more comprehensive. It kind of falls under scenario 2 of my explanation on the talk page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really a matter for this AfD, but I definitely agree that after the second book is out, I'd personally consider it best to retain only a series article. I love a good series article, and I think they can be much more useful than a million individual book articles... ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify for two months. A series with one book should have either an article about the series or an article about the book, but not both (and the choice is fundamentally a WP:PAGEDECIDE one). I can't even imagine possible sourcing which would necessitate two articles for a series with one book in it; certainly none of the existing sources demand such a thing. But in two months, this will be a series with two books. WP:CRYSTALBALL situations like these are what draftspace is made for. No objection to a redirect in the meantime. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see multiple redirect options have been suggested -- I very slightly prefer The Sun and the Star, but have no objection to other options. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to any reasonable target. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M3GAN (film series)

[edit]
M3GAN (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NFF: there aren't three released films to make this a series; this is WP:TOOSOON and the series itself does not have sufficient in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG; suggest return to Draft-space until a) the third film is released and b) the series itself receives its own significant coverage Joeyconnick (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Joeyconnick (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and embargo until the January film's release. Perfect timing, since a draft can sit for six months and it's due sooner than that. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • draftify: too soon, but not much too soon - it's certainly worth holding onto. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Draftifying is a waste of time here, a third film is already produced and will come out in months, hence why itself has an article already.★Trekker (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though this article is about a film series; After conducting a thorough BEFORE search, I was able to find general notability guidelines or to demonstrate significant coverage. The series includes a commercially successful and critically acclaimed original film and also next film's release date has been already announced. Fade258 (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fade258's comment doesn't make any sense - bearing in mind that we ask that editors do not use LLM generated comments in discussions - I think that !vote should be struck or at least be disregarded by the closer. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 16:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @DandelionAndBurdock, Hope this message finds you well. To be honest, I want to clarify you regarding my above comments that I didn't use AI to generate comments. Since, My native language is not English. So, My English language is somehow not good and may be vague or unclear. I am happy to accept decision made by any closing administrator, If they finds me using AI in above comments. Note: I honestly disclose here that, I have used User talk:Fade258/Archive 5#AI-aided response AI once for grammer only but not for generating thoughts or comments. I don't even think to use AI to generate comments, As I am pretty confident that I have adequate grasp knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case, what did you mean by I was able to find general notability guidelines or to demonstrate significant coverage? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean to say that, Since this article is about film series. I am assessing the first two films which is mentioned in this article which meets the general notability guidelines and significant coverage and also passes the WP:NFILM. Fade258 (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The notability of the individual films was never in question though. This AfD is about an article for the series. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes noted that. Notability of the individual films wasn't a question but it plays some part regarding the notability of film series because of the extensive critical reviews of the films in the series. The series fulfills both film and film series notability standards which is being supported by multiple reliable and independent references to the topic and it also serves as a useful entry for the readers. Fade258 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't a question mark over notability of the films on an individual basis. The question is whether a series can be considered notable as an actual series, when at this moment it does not actually exist as a "series", until release of the third instalment. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Bungle, Hope this message finds you well. Thanks for your input. Though there's no question about the notability of films but I think it is valid for standalone article because two are already notable and third one is to be released. So, moving to draft and again move back to mainspace is little bit awkward. I am not against the draft nor confident for draftify. Fade258 (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding "but I think it is valid for standalone article", no, notability of this article is not dependent upon the standalone articles, as their notability isn't in question and are not up for discussion individually.
    I do alude in my !vote below the "awkward-ness" as you phrase it, in sending to draft while having reasonable confidence it'll return to mainspace. Yet, that is one of the reasons we have draftspace, for a WP:TOOSOON case like this. This isn't a case of totally delete and start from scratch in a few months.
    I can see both sides, but strictly per policy, this should probably wait a little while longer. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your statement above. We need to hear more from other editors on what they say about this. Fade258 (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drafity until release of third film. I pondered this one compared to just accepting keeping it in mainspace, given the third film (which officially makes it a "series") has already finished filming; therefore, we can reasonably assume it will be released to make this a series. It feels a bit pedantic to temporarily send this back to draftspace, which is perhaps the point Trekker makes above, yet per policy the "series" has to be notable for an article to exist and will not exist as a series until release of the third instalment. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The films are notable and there is enough WP:SIGCOV to justify a series article as the third film (which already has an article) is scheduled for release within months. Deletion or draftifying do not seem appropriate in this case. MidnightMayhem 17:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is enough coverage in my opinion to merit an article. Putting to a draft seems like a waste of everyone's time, considering notable and film has already been produced. Blethering Scot 19:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the third film hasn't been released, principal photography has been completed. Now let's assume the worst case scenario: no more sequels are made and the spinoff never releases. In that situation a film series page could serve as a new home for any information about the third movie. There would be no reason to debate whether it goes in the article for the first or second film, or worry about having to over summarize in order to avoid putting undue weight on an unreleased film in the article for another film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware that my argument goes a little outside policy, but I do think that this is one of those situations where a series article would just make sense. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is already enough GNG to justify an independent article. Draftifying it for a few months would just create more work and issues. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments are evenly divided between Keep and Draftify. Ultimately, it doesn't matter for the future of this article just where it is located for the near future. But we still need to come to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Izzy Sinclair

[edit]
Izzy Sinclair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A comic book companion in the Doctor Who comic strips. A search for sources yields only two hits: [8] this, which only yields small bits of coverage, and this [9] which largely is plot summary with minor comments. Any other source mentioning her is a chiefly trivial mention in plot summary. This character just doesn't really have much WP:SIGCOV to back up a whole article. I'd suggest a redirect to List of Doctor Who spin-off companions as a viable AtD, since she is mentioned in that article already and her current article is entirely plot summary. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Merger? Also, you can't choose List of Doctor Who spin-off companions as a target article as it is a Redirect, not an article. Please select an existing article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Nucle Saga I

[edit]
The Nucle Saga I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK. Sources 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are WP:PRIMARY sources - the book itself, the author's website, the author's YouTube channel, etc. Sources 1, 2, 6, and 9 are promotional articles - either an interview of the author or an article about the book launch. These are excluded under WP:BKCRIT #1: publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Astaire (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chill Master's Screen

[edit]
Chill Master's Screen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable RPG supplement. This article does list a few references, with a review from a sci-fi magazine, but do not see lasting notability.

The overall topic of gamemaster's screen seems to be notable, but no indication that this specific one is. Natg 19 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mika1h's latest objection following the article expansion has not been addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chill (role-playing game). Seems about right. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Life Model Decoy

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Life Model Decoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet again, no reception/analysis - this is just plot summary and list of apperances. The old AfD from 2013 or so claimed "sources exist", but did not mention which ones contain SIGCOV that goes beyong plot summary, and my BEFORE failed to locate anything (I had trouble accessing some sources cited, but for example the mention in What is American? book seems to be to be pure plot summary and SIGCOV-failing; in either case, the article, as I said, has no analysis/reception of any sort). Per WP:ATD-R, this can be redirected to Features of the Marvel Universe. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mutants, Androids, and Aliens has commentary on Life Model Decoys, using individual characters as examples, and drawing conclusions about robots and androids more generally, but also pronouncing that disctincions matter and that the Life Model Decoy has a very specific niche as a sentient android (at least in this incarnation). So "no recpetion/analysis" falls short. (Drat, I did not actually want to know all those revelations on shows I may still watch.) What is American? has at least brief commentary on the life model decoy from a specific story as a "product of transformative experiments undertaken by a secret American government", etc. Unnützes Wissen für Marvel-Nerds suggests that Life Model Decoys function can be to retro-actively distance a character from behaviour in storylines. Daranios (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joss Whedon Versus the Corporation, p. 74, 125, also discusses how the LMD story element represents technological dangers; while drawing general conclusion (and comparisons with other media), this is again based on the character AIDA. In contrast, "Iron Man : entre confusion identitaire et addiction à la technologie" has similar conclusions but is based on an unrelated LMD. Daranios (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not done a deep dive into the sources. Nightscream (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which means your argument can be summarized as WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion on the content of sources notwithstanding, WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES would mean that no such sources have been named. That is not the case here, as the secondary sources in question are currently listed in the references of the article. So that essay does not apply to the situation here. Daranios (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to S.H.I.E.L.D.. Daranios's sources have some fantastic coverage, but they feel more fitting for an AIDA article than a Life Model Decoy one, as they're largely all in relation to how it affects that particular character instead of being about the concept as a whole. I wouldn't be opposed to an AIDA article at some point based on the extent of this coverage, but for the terms of this AfD and the coverage of specifically Life Model Decoys, I'd say it's likely not enough for notability. SHIELD seems to be the most valid AtD at present, so I'd recommend a redirect there to preserve the info in case of a future AIDA article or something similar. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: What is American? is about a very different LMD than AIDA. Mutants, Androids, and Aliens is talking more about what the concept LMD brings with it in general and LMD Melinda May than AIDA, although I think all in the same medium. Daranios (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why do fan articles like this get a pass if they're for Marvel? As the nominator says, there's no secondary coverage here. It's all just in-universe stuff. Fine for a fan wiki, but that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
Coverage should be a redirect to a section in whichever is the best of our infinite universe of Marvel articles, no more. 2A00:23C5:E9AC:DA01:6C4C:4E3:8ECB:EFDB (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect This AFD looks like it might be trending to no consensus. With my merge/redirect, I see the nominator's delete/redirect, three more deletes, two more redirects, one merge turned keep, and four keeps. But I see some more WP:ATD support if you read in the comments. It could be maybe 7/12 combining the soft redirect/merge support, which would be more than the keeps or deletes by themselves. When you clean up the primary sourced "known examples" this would be a stub with a very easy and clean merge. Archrogue (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to S.H.I.E.L.D., where the concept is explained in the "Fictional organizational history" section. If a specific character has coverage and analysis, that might demonstrate that specific character is notable, but that does not extend to the entire, uh, "species" (for lack of better term) they belong to. The trivia list of examples that most of the article is made up of is clearly not appropriate for merging, and the actual explanation of LMDs is already covered in the main SHIELD article. Rorshacma (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is not just a SHIELD technology, but rather influences the entire Marvel comics universe and is mirrored in other media. GNG is met, NOPAGE arguments are not convincing, and the main SHIELD article is already very busy, as it seems to have is tentacles into everything Marvel... Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Auton (film series)

[edit]
Auton (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A film series for the Doctor Who franchise. I recently did research for the Autons, and while digging, I did a little bit of research on these films, but could find absolutely nothing on them. The only mentions were brief, and mentioned the films existed, but said nothing more. I can't find any dev info, let alone SIGCOV that would provide reception for the films. The only source from the article providing any commentary is a single book, with any other source being fanzines or Doctor Who Magazine, which is a PRIMARY source officially published for the Doctor Who franchise, and with BBV being tied to the BBC in production of these films, I doubt it passes a threshold of separation from the Magazine's usual advertisement. This article also suffers from WP:COATRACK, courtesy of all three being separate, non-notable subjects covered together to cobble together an article. I'd suggest a redirect to either BBV Productions where these films are listed, or Nestene Consciousness and Autons, where these films are also listed, as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think coatrack applies as the films are obviously connected on the same subject by the same producers and the same distributors. Regarding the book source for critical analysis "Downtime - The Lost Years of Doctor Who" by Dylan Rees it would be considered more reliable if it has been used in scholarly sources ? imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atlantic306 I don't deny the Downtime source, but the fact it's quite literally the only reliable piece of SIGCOV is the biggest problem. An article relying basically exclusively on one source is a huge issue; I've found substantially more content comparatively on other BBV films, these ones definitely seem to be the outlier in terms of actual SIGCOV that exists. If there's any more out there I missed I'd be happy to see it though. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; specific opinions on outcomes for this article would be very helpful, since I see very little of that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Science_fiction_and_fantasy&oldid=1303955494"