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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Science fiction or fantasy.

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[edit]

Space Marines (film)[edit]

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

The film is not notable in the sense that there are not multiple reliable sources having significant coverage about this topic. There is a review by The Washington Post here but nothing beyond that that I could find. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:03, 23 May 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 ☎ ✎ 19:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging already-involved editors Govvy, Atlantic306, and Mushy Yank. I had proposed deletion but Mushy Yank contested it on account of the review by The Washington Post. Started this AfD to see this through fully. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just deproDed the page. Meets requirement for notability with significant coverage in reliable sources including a full review in The Washington Post. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said you removed it because it had a review in The Washington Post? That does not equate plurality of reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A review in the WP is enough to DEPROD a page, yes. But please read the comment I left on TP in the OldProd template. And also read the sources on the page. I've added various references. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Washington Post review was syndicated nationally; here's the review in The Newport News Daily Press. There are a lot more examples on newspapers.com. Toughpigs (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thanks, that's a good source. Any others you can share? I can go ahead and update the article with them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oh, I misunderstood. Doesn't the same coverage being repeated elsewhere still count as only one source? Are there more sources that are different from the WaPo review? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, WP:N says, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." So we still only have Washington Post as the only reliable source covering this film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we still only have Washington Post as the only reliable source covering this film. No. Just read the page. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you think these sources in the Wikipedia article are significant coverage. Here is a breakdown:
Regarding Off the Page, the film is only mentioned in passing, so it's not significant coverage.

For the other items, these are capsule reviews and not sufficient coverage. WP:NF says, "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews', plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides..." Such guides have many films with only one sentence about them.

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, borderline notable... I think it is fair to presume that if the WaPo wrote a full review of this 1996 film that additional coverage which would meet GNG exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the sources added is for Space Cowboys and not this film, two others are what? Databases with no degree of help to the article, so that leaves one review which I couldn't read because of the paywall. And that really is only one source left in the article. It's hardly signov, my gut still tells me it's a delete unless there was something more. Govvy (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laputa[edit]

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

I have no opinion on this, but am opening this AfD because there has been an edit war between WP:BLARing this article (citing a lack of secondary sources) and keeping it as an article. Natg 19 (talk) 20:54, 22 May 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. Natg 19 (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR, TompaDompa, and Викидим: (users involved in the edit war). Natg 19 (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for opening this discussion; I was just about to do so myself. I'd prefer to uphold the redirect to Gulliver's Travels § Part III: A Voyage to Laputa, Balnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrib and Japan. I've had concerns about this article ever since I came across it last year. (diff) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I undid the initial WP:BOLD WP:Blank and redirect on the basis that WP:Articles for deletion/Brobdingnag (2nd nomination) resulted in "keep" back in 2022, meaning there is precedent to keep stand-alone articles (such as Brobdingnag) on locations in Gulliver's Travels, and the article should at minimum be brought to WP:AfD first. On the merits of having a stand-alone page, a quick Google Scholar search (scholar:laputa) gets a fair number of hits (that I have admittedly not looked particularly deeply into) that suggest that the topic at least meets our WP:Notability requirements. That does not rule out a WP:NOPAGE situation, of course. TompaDompa (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping the participants in the above-mentioned deletion discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Brobdingnag (2nd nomination)—@Jontesta, PatGallacher, Vexations, Jclemens, BennyOnTheLoose, and Bearian: Feel free to weigh in here. TompaDompa (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: The difference is that Brobdingnag has decent secondary sources, while Laputa uses only primary sources. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to believe that any content using these sources should be located at Gulliver's Travels or a subpage of that article. Skimming through some sources on the topic, I'm seeing a majority of the discussion of the subject in the context of the larger work and not of the location in isolation, and the encyclopedia should probably reflect that. I'm also not convinced by the precedent set by the Brobdingnag article, which is currently struggling from quite a bit of in-universe fluff that seems more reminiscent of a fan wiki. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that there exists a body of very substantial scholarship on Brobdingnag (and, possibly, Laputa). This is Swift, after all, not some computer game universe. However, it seems to be much easier to delete the existing text and simply wait for someone to create an article that will show this project in a good light. The kind of WP:OR obvious in both Laputa and Brobdingnag tends to attract more of the same. We want editors looking for secondary WP:RS, don't we? Викидим (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEXIST says that notability is based on the existence of reliable sources, not the current state of the article. You are suggesting we WP:TNT the article, which should only be done in extreme cases. It is much easier to improve an existing page than it is to create a new one. Toughpigs (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First three statements: yes, of course for all three. The fourth one It is much easier to improve an existing page than it is to create a new one. Not necessarily. I wrote some articles from scratch and modified some, and I think that in many cases writing from scratch is much easier. In this particular case, note how much the sources listed below by BennyOnTheLoose deviate from the current text: none of the subjects in the suggested secondary sources appear to have been touched upon in the current text. Викидим (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The article as-is entirely relies on the text of Swift's books (the only non-Swift source currently listed does not appear to be used). I can imagine an article on the subject that shows notability, but this text is not it: I do not think that the WP:DUE content of the hypothetical replacement will use much of the current text. --Викидим (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like there plenty of potential sources, e.g.:

Laputa, the Whore of Babylon, and the Idols of Science. Dennis Todd, Studies in Philology, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Winter, 1978), pp. 93-120

Science and Politics in Swift's Voyage to Laputa. Robert P. Fitzgerald, The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. 87, No. 2 (Apr., 1988), pp. 213-229

The Unity of Swift's "Voyage to Laputa": Structure as Meaning in Utopian Fiction. Jenny Mezciems, The Modern Language Review, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Jan., 1977), pp. 1-21

The "Motionless" Motion of Swift's Flying Island. Robert C. Merton. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1966), pp. 275-277

Laputa, the Whore of Babylon, and the Idols of Science. Dennis Todd. Studies in Philology, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Winter, 1978), pp. 93-120

The Scientific Background of Swift's 'Voyage to Laputa'. Marjorie Nicolson and Nora M. Mohler, Annals of Science, II (1937), 291-334

Swift's Flying Island in the 'Voyage to Laputa'. Marjorie Nicolson and Nora M. Mohler, Annals of Science, II (1937), 405-30

Swift's Laputians as a Caricature of the Cartesians. David Renaker PMLA, Vol. 94, No. 5 (Oct., 1979), pp. 936-944

These came up from a very quick search of JSTOR. I've only glanced over them, so if someone tells me that they don't actually cover the subject in detail then I'd be open to changing my view. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One of the articles that BennyOnTheLoose identified, "The Unity of Swift's Voyage to Laputa: Structure as Meaning in Utopian Fiction", is included in Jonathan Swift: A Collection of Critical Essays. Internet Archive has the book, but unfortunately you can't see the whole thing: this is the link. Still, you can see the chapter heading and some sample text. Swift is important; people have been writing critical analyses of Swift's work for more than two centuries. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also found another chapter, "Gulliver in Laputa", in a 1968 collection, Twentieth Century Interpretations of Gulliver's Travels: A Collection of Critical Essays. Toughpigs (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above sourcing. I'll further note that "delete it until someone comes along and writes a better article" is a statement void of empirical underpinning: no one has demonstrated that is how reality works, even though the sentiment has been bandied about for probably a decade or more. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My work on Russian Wikipedia provides many empirical examples of this - entirely common - situation: if an article on an important subject is missing, its very absence spurs editors recognizing its importance to create one. In cases like that, where there are a lot of users ready to add WP:OR based on the personal understanding of the Swift's text, the previous fate of the article helps to explain the need for secondary sources. Au contraire, a text that is essentially OR based on primary sources, tends to attract more of the same. Викидим (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take My Muffin[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Search throws up nothing obvious; cites are less than convincing. TheLongTone (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing I find is strictly to crypto or animation blog sites, none of which are useful for notability. What's also used in the article is not in RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Cryptocurrency. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The articles on AnimationMagazine and CoinIdol seem significant. The claim that it was the 1st series created with the support of a cryptocurrency community is backed for ex by. https://medium.com/@kat123/what-is-take-my-muffin-c734f48266c6 and https://medium.com/@chinedukalu66/take-my-muffin-a-blockchain-based-nft-animation-project-with-the-potential-to-revolutionize-the-e73b125a8484 ; also see https://www.awn.com/news/new-episode-take-my-muffin-hits-youtube, https://thevrsoldier.com/bluelight-aims-to-gamify-the-take-my-muffin-animation-series-betting-on-the-strong-degames-trend/ and the claim itself might add some kind of notability to the production. A redirect to the only creator who has a page, if really that is considered insufficient, maybe? (I think it meets GNG, though) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaean Reach[edit]

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

Non-notable article composed of unreliable or primary sources. A search showed only trivial mentions, no significant coverage in reliable sources. My assessment is that it does not pass WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Science fiction BEFORE searches should include scholar and books. PhD thesis from South Africa here has detailed commentary on pp 91-100, and is contrasted to clearly notable science fiction universes like Asimov's Foundation. Also appears to be covered in Handbook of Vance Space by Andre-Driussi, ISBN 978-0964279568, but I am unable to see previews for that. Also appears in Xeno Fiction: More Best of Science Fiction: A Review of Speculative Literature by Broderick and Ikin, ISBN 978-1479400799, but again--I don't have access beyond snippet view, which appears promising. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Planet (novel)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I found nothing that shows notability. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment': As for the sources shown in the first AFD - Starwars.com is not independent of the subject which is three of the links, Denver Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Club is unreliable (and about a different book), and SFsite is unreliable. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juhani (Star Wars)[edit]

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

Source analysis from reception: Of all sources that have been used, Gizmodo [1] is the only sigcov here. [2] Passing mention. [3] A trivia coverage from a listicle. [4] trivia coverage. [5] just a passing mention of Juhani being a lesbian character and can have lesbian relationship with trivia coverage [6] passing mention [7] listicle [8] just talked about her being created as a lesbian and the romance, a bit useful but this and Gizmodo isn't enough to pass the notability threshold. The rest of the sources that I didn't mention aren't reliable/situational and cannot help WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:49, 21 May 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 Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the character list. The reception consists of trivial mentions with no indication of standalone notability at all. Simply being a milestone for something is not enough to merit a page, unfortunately. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The character's milestone status does seem to have gotten her some attention from outside the normal fan-coverage sources, however. Whether it's sufficiently significant coverage, I'm a terrible judge. But see: Dym, Brianna (2019). "The burden of queer love". Press Start. 5 (1): 19–35. (pp. 24-26 in particular) and Shaw, Adrienne; Friesem, Elizaveta (2016). "Where is the queerness in games?: Types of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer content in digital games". International Journal of Communication. 10: 3877–3889. (admittedly, only one paragraph on p. 3883 but includes context and analysis outside the first game). Snippet view (and Google Scholar) suggest there might be some discussion of the character in chapter 8 of this Routledge-published book, but I don't have immediate access and my library doesn't have a copy handy. Lubal (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There are only passing mentions of this in reliable sources. It isn't enough to pass the notability threshold. Jontesta (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Torchwood items[edit]

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

I don't use the term CRUFT lightly, but this certainly feels like the definition of it. Nothing covers objects in Torchwood to a significant extent, and the bulk of the items covered here are minor and non-notable. I definitely feel this list should likely be deleted, or at the very least partially merged into the Doctor Who items list, though I'm not feeling confident on that list either. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 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 Television. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of meeting NLIST, and it looks like it would fit in perfectly on a Fandom wiki. Ping me if anything comes up that could change my mind. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A complete mishmash of random things related to Torchwood, ranging from things that appeared in the background of an episode, to things mentioned once or twice, to just real world things that just happened to be shown on screen. There are very clearly no sources that cover this random gathering as a group or set, meaning it fails WP:NLIST, and probably runs afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. I think even a Fandom wiki would think twice before including a page like this. Rorshacma (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:CSC #2. The topic of this list is "Torchwood" not "Torchwood items", much like the topic of "characters of franchise" is "franchise" so the group does not have to be discussed as a set to meet NLIST, because Torchwood is already notable. No objection to renaming the article, but since we have other AfDs likely to close as merge to here (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardiff Rift) deletion is particularly problematic as it would result in the destruction of content that could be better rewritten from history to be more encyclopedic. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Torchwood is inherently notable does not mean this list should really be existing. It's a collection of indiscriminate information about random items from the show, none of which seem to have much of an indicator that they're actually important. There's no real encyclopedic value here, as there's nothing really to be discussed. Non-notable subsets related to shows have been removed in the past for these reasons (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who henchmen (2nd nomination) as an example from the same shared universe). As for the Cardiff Rift discussion, the Rift isn't really an item, so I'm not sure why it's being brought up in regards to that discussion, especially since the Rift isn't even mentioned in the Torchwood items article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE applies both ways; previous removals aren't normative. If there's a need to edit a list, great, do it, improve it by editing rather than deletion. The fact that this is brought up in that deletion discussion gives us a hint that 1) there is a need for an article to cover not-individually-notable aspects from Torchwood, and 2) this may be it, but at the wrong title. I'm not the person to do this, since my wife peace out'ed after Countrycide so I'm hardly informed enough about the series. Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While CSC applies to lists, the list must still meet NLIST in order to be a valid standalone list, regardless of the notability of the parent topic. If this weren't the case, we'd be swarmed with a lot of useless lists like this one that don't really have any benefit to existing beyond the fact there's nothing saying they can't exist. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST and WP:IINFO, per Rorshacma. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this as a stand-alone list. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earthsearch Mindwarp[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing any RS to consider against the inclusion criteria - not all BBC radio dramas are notable. WP:NOTEVERYTHING WP:NOTPLOT JMWt (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a very condensed version to author James Follett#Radio and redirect as WP:Alternative to deletion. Daranios (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James Follett#Radio, nothing to merge since the article is unreferenced. --Mika1h (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heightened Senses[edit]

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

nonnotable online story by nonnotable author. Looks like as self-promo SPA - Altenmann >talk 22:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject in my searches for sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article seems to basically be one long plot summary without any external input. If anyone wanted to read all that, then they could just read the story itself. -- D'n'B-t -- 07:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it lacks verifiable sources and reliable references, making it difficult to confirm the accuracy of the information. Additionally, the topic is too broad and speculative, leading to vague and unsubstantiated claims that do not meet Wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards. --Assirian cat (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks of significant coverage in reliable sources.Dowrylauds (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Minmay[edit]

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

Profile on an idol singer from the original Macross Saga, a.k.a. arc #1 of Robotech in the West. Recently prodded per WP:NPLOT and WP:NCHARACTER; taking it to AFD to see whether the rest of the participants agree with my decision to get it merged into/redirected to List of Macross characters or List of Robotech characters.

On a related note, stay tuned as I pitch a potential decade-old (and Waybacked) source that the page on the 1986 tie-in movie--a.k.a. Megazone 23's first go at U.S. licensing--could sure benefit from. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Music, and Anime and manga. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note The character first name is alternatively spelled Lin, and last name Minmei, and I can see additional sources (that I have not evaluated for appropriateness) under those variants. She is the antagonist of the first arc (a la Jenny from Forrest Gump) and a pretty major character. If not retained, this should be merged to List of Robotech characters which uses alternative spellings for the name and does not link here. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have certainly never been a fan of Minmay, but describing her as "the antagonist" of Macross seems a bit harsh! In any case, I would say that List of Macross characters be the more appropriate Merge target, as that was the original version of the character, and this page is focused a lot more on the Macross version of the character, including her roles/influence in later Macross series. Though, that page would obviously have an appropriate redirect to List of Robotech characters to direct people to those versions of the characters as well. I took a quick look at the Japanese Wikipedia's article on the character, but it seems like most of the references being used there are primary, largely being official Macross publications/products. Rorshacma (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Minmei hate aside (which is purely tongue-in-cheek on my part), this is one good reason to maybe maintain an independent article: We have the same animated figure, with similar name, associated with two stories, both Macross and Robotech. How do we best represent that: at the character level o/r show level? No comment on primary sourcing--I haven't really done a search yet. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is a classic and I'd think reasonably famous anime character. While I have not done an in-depth source query, Google Scholar returns 48 hits for the primary spelling. That said, the article is bad and I'll see if I can start a reception section or such. Ping User:Daranios (as I am a bit busy right now). Anyway, I am pretty sure this meets WP:GNG (if not in the current fancrufty form). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current version of the article strangely elides what seems to be Minmay's main attribute of real-world notability: she was, as this Kotaku article explains, the first fictional singer to garner major real world success, before characters more familiar in the present like Hatsune Miku. The 1984 release of the song "Do You Remember Love?" (the Macross theme song) featured the character Minmay as vocalist, and the release reached #7 on the Oricon music charts. This is covered in the linked Kotaku article. Additional attentive coverage of the character appears in chapter six of the anthology Media Convergence in Japan, edited by Patrick W. Galbraith and Jason G. Karlin and (published under a Creative Commons license by the academic collective Kinema Club). From a cursory look, a good deal of the GoogleScholar hits are similarly about Minmay's history as the first 'virtual/fictional idol'. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Hydrangeans - I somewhat suspected that, even if sources regarding the notability of the in-universe character might be weak, there would be some regarding the real-life popularity and influence of the music attributed to her. I am not entirely happy with the English sources as none of them are super long - there's quite a number of reliable sources that all talk about her notability as one of the earliest examples of a "virtual idol" that gained popularity in the real world, but don't say much more than that. But the sources available, combined with the issues regarding the best way to cover the character in other articles as mentioned by Jclemens above, make me lean towards keeping. I would guess there might be some good Japanese-language sources regarding the topic of the real-world notability of Minmay as well, but unfortunately, as I mentioned above, the Japanese Wikipedia article is currently all made up of in-universe information attributed largely to primary sources, so no luck using that as a resource for more non-English sourcing. Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Hydrangeans. The sources are borderline in terms of the coverage we need. I'm inferring that the amount of coverage in English implies that there's even more coverage in Japanese, even if the Japanese Wikipedia article is poorly sourced. I am convinced that WP:SIGCOV exists. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Vette (Star Wars)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It still feels like the only good source is [9] that. The controversy were mostly discussed about the game, similarly like Controversies surrounding Mass Effect 3 and not the character. It doesn't help notability about the character either, AND may be WP:UNDUE or whatever it is. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the character list. As with the last AfD, most coverage about her is about a single controversy, and it feels undue to spin off into its own page. Still, I doubt this will reach a different outcome than last time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zxcvbnm's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, always specify a target article if you are proposing a Merge or Redirect. We have hundreds (thousands?) of articles on Star Wars, its worlds and characters on many different platforms (film, TV, books, video games, maybe board games (?)) and the closer should be guessing which one you think is the most appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zxcvbnm, as WP:ATD. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV but can be preserved in a logical place. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zxcvbnm's analysis. For the target, I would assume everyone above meant for it to be merged to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series, as that was the target proposed in the last, No Consensus AFD discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malhun Hatun (fictional character)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Having hard time to find any valuable source per WP:BEFORE + character has no reception at all. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:48, 11 May 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 Television. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the film. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I searched Malhun Hatun without "fictional character" and went to Google News and found tons of sources about her. Perhaps you should tag it for notability for a week or two weeks, then nominate it for deletion or maybe an assessment, although that's just my opinion. Kazama16 (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Rift[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG its WP:ALLPLOT and has been tagged for notability for 12 years Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:31, 2 May 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 Wales. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, for one, Illuminating Torchwood has a lot to say about the topic at various places, but usually calls it "the Rift" or "the rift" rather than the Cardiff Rift. Daranios (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Any chance you could add this to the article (and ping me)? There is a receptions section already, but sourced to a meh newspaper so far, and nothing else. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I've added what I had thought to from Illuminating Torchwood, tough there is some more, as can also be seen in previews of pages not available at Google Books. Daranios (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Thank you. Weak keep for me considering the current state of the 'reception and analysis' section. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Collecting further sources, shorter but still relevant are: Once Upon a Time Lord, pp. 129-130, "'You guys and your cute little categories": Torchwood, The Space-Time Rift and Cardiff's Postmodern, Postcolonial and (avowedly) Pansexual Gothic", and very brief but calls it "a key point in the mythology of Doctor Who during the Tenth Doctor era", this web article. Daranios (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That web aticle doenst count for very much. Valnet sources are not great for showing notability. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 12:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: I agree, was just listing it for future reference, useable as ScreenRant still counts as "reliable for entertainment-related topics". Might have phrased that better. Being convinced of the notability of the topic based on the other sources, I've gone ahead and added that to the article as low-hanging fruit. Daranios (talk)
Keep I believe the existing sources together establish notability. While there is currently an imbalance between plot and non-plot in the article, it is also not all plot, as I believe the criticism of the Cardiff Rift being a plot device for lazy writers is relevant despite being presented in a satirical manner. (The Register is considered a reliable source.) And these problems can be solved by normal editing with the listed sources. Daranios (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge: This isn't really a separate topic from the fiction itself. I do see some mentions in sources, but not enough to reach WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The non-plot content has been expanded now since the beginning of this AfD. Daranios (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge. This is dictionaty-definition fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone: WP:Fancruft: "The use of the term ... is not a substitute for a well-reasoned argument based on existing Wikipedia policies." Daranios (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not if I was voting for deletion but its a valid argument for merging of redirecting. The article is fancruft; the topic can be adequately covered in a para elsewhere.TheLongTone (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Where should this be redirected/merged to? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between editors arguing to Keep this article and those advocating a Merge or Redirect but who have offered no target article so it would be impossible to carry out their recommendation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep this article needs a heavy rewrite but I feel there's enough to show notability, especially since there really isn't a viable merge target. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge target What about Wormholes in fiction? Keeping this ludicrous mass of cruft as a standalone article simply because of doubt as to where it should be merge/redirected to is lame beyond belief.13:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

TheLongTone, it's a real and practical concern. XFDcloser can't close a discussion as Redirect or Merge without a target article identified. It just can't be done if that is the consensus opinion. And there has to be agreement on what that target article is. That's how the software works. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Possibly List of Torchwood items? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge target as list of Torchwood items. I'd also support a merge to the main Torchwood series article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon, I can see that its a real concernbecause the article is ludicrous.TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since the Rift is central to the premise of the show, wouldn't the actual main Torchwood article, where it is already mentioned throughout, be the better location to merge information on it to, rather than a spinout list article? Rorshacma (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely agree to either Wormholes in fiction or the main Torchwood article if a merge has to be done. The Rift also isn't mentioned at the List article, and isn't really an item per se. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main Torchwood article makes more sense to me. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions[edit]