Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:36, 8 January 2023

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 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chi and Me

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

Cable TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced affair that gives no proof of notability. The Banner talk 10:53, 10 January 2023 (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 delete. Arguments to keep are not based in policy; it's quite likely that other fan films require deletion also, but that's not relevant here, see WP:OSE Vanamonde (Talk) 02:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the further procedure here? I guess, if there are upcoming arguments for notability they can be stated here? Or is it a deletion for ever? And please remove the other fan film articles too. The Wikipedia rule are not good understandable and not really transparent, but if we have even countless other examples, which strikes these rules it is just confusing, right? But Wikipedia should stay understandable as its own goal as always stated in public. Please improve this vision, at the moment is has not this view in public. Take it just as an review contribution. Thank you. Stw 001 (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Troopers: Deadlock

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE. All awards appear to be minor DonaldD23 talk to me 02:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Germany. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Appears to be a non-notable fan film, without any actual coverage or reviews in reliable sources. Its only claim to notability is winning minor awards at largely non-notable film festivals. As this is just a fan film and has no notability, it should definitely not be merged or added to the main article on the Starship Troopers film franchise. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote some reviews are yet pending. Also further Film Festival contributions are pending. And finally to produce this movie, members of the former film crew of the original movie from 1997 contributed here. Therefore I think it is notable, because it is simply part of the Starship Troopers universe. It is not just a fan film, it is a further development of the story, it fills the gap between SST3 and the animated SST films. Moreover, we developed even an own new bug for it - the sniper bug made by the original contributor and art designer of Starship Troopers - Jim Martin. Another contributor was Rock Galotti, the former armorer of SST, the maker of the 'Morita'. On YouTube there is also an interview with Rock. Yo can also take a look onto the movies website starship-troopers.net for more background information.

Please support this project! Stw 001 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, we developed even an own new bug for it

Are you saying here that you were involved in the production of this film? If that's the case, it seems like you have a conflict of interest which you haven't disclosed while creating this article.

Outside of that, whether reviews are pending or not, if proper sources don't exist yet then the article doesn't pass the requirements for notability. It could be that it's just too soon for this article to exist. OliveYouBean (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point here to the 'Inclusionary criteria' of the WP:NFILM. I think some attributes have this quality, it is for sure very unique, not even repeating something existing before, but rather a further development within a given universe. Please think about this argumentation. Stw 001 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to review the movie, please use the following link: [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPuPnnzKbHo - it is just private listed due to the pending Film Festival contributions. The premiere of the movie was last year in Munich (Germany) in cinema. Since then we offered the viewing on YouTube for all SST fan for free. The movie was made without any budget, which is also notable I think. Stw 001 (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"we offered"? This is clearly a conflict of interest. It does not appear that that was disclosed when you created the article. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am not sure if I understand your right? Why it is a conflict to provide a movie to watch for free? So maybe it is the wrong wording, but how to express it? It is just open and non-commercial, so why exactly that should be a problem or conflict? I want to underline, that there is no need to make advertisement for it due to it is non-profit and open for all. I think that is rather good, than bad, isn't it? So then please delete that I said "we offered", we did not offer anything. It is just available and that's it. Stw 001 (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're quite understanding what DonaldD23 is saying. On Wikipedia, a conflict of interest means that you're writing about "yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." If you were involved in the creation of this film (which seems to be true from how you keep using "we" in this discussion), then that's a conflict of interest. OliveYouBean (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you very much for this explanation. I understand it clearly now. Of course I don't want to raise such a conflict of interest. However, it is not a profit-driven interest, it is just the willing to help the SST topic in summary. It would not help me in a private way, I could not get any personal advantage from it, it is neither my job nor my profession. To solve this problem I want to ask you guys if somebody of you could take over the further contribution and advocacy for this article? In the name of the "Starship Troopers universe" I think it would be worth to spend some effort here. Of course I state it from point of view of a fan of "Starship Troopers" itself. I cannot expect, that you (all) share the same interest. However, it would be a kind support to all SST fans worldwide in my opinion. Due to the fact that Starship Troopers compared e.g. to StarWars is rather a nice. Therefore this article would simply helpful for people, who is searching for information about this topic in glance. Could you please help to fight for this article? Don't beat me for raising it. I will then sign off. However, if you need a discussion partner - then I am standby for you. Thank you Gentlemen. Stw 001 (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The movie is produced in two spoken languages - English and German. The movie has 5 subtitle languages: German, English, Polish, French, Spain. Made according to the Netflix specification for subtitles. The crew was about hundred people spread worldwide. The production time was five years.

I could also ask Casper van Dien for support, if that can be helpful? Stw 001 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stw 001: Notability on Wikipedia is determined by what unrelated sources have to say about them, since there really aren't any talking about this film it probably doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. This doesn't mean that the film isn't unique or notable in a way, just that it doesn't meet the criteria for the type of films with dedicated entries on Wikipedia. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't seem to meet WP:NFILM although it's a cool project. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But please stay patient, a lot of pending activities are yet ongoing. I think in the first half of this year we will hear more about this project. And then we get some notability I am sure. Stw 001 (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the Berlin award can be sourced then a mention of this could maybe be mentioned in the article for Starship Troopers 3: Marauder. It wouldn't be enough for its own article, but a one line mention could work. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, it would appear that the "German Short Film Festival" that gave this film an award is not the same Berlin Short Film Festival that we actually have an article on. That one is an annual festival in Berlin, that you can see from the official site, does not mention this film. It appears that this film actually was awarded the Berlin Shorts Award, which describes itself as a monthly, online contest. Rorshacma (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea maybe. please do it. see my comment above - I sign off here, not to raise a conflict of interest. This article is looking for a guy who can take over to fight for it. Maybe even you could take over? I stay ready in case of needed discussions, but I want not force anything. As I said, I am on the way for the topic in glance, but not for any private advantage. It is an 'open project', everybody can contribute and it would help all fans of it. Thank you again, for your good proposal - Good bye. Stw 001 (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Because I pointed to "Starwars" compared to "Starship Troopers", please take a look to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fan_films_based_on_Star_Wars. Please review each of these articles. And then tell me why we should no keep the article about the Starship Troopers fan film? For Starwars there are at least 42 fan films! I think alone for this fact the article is "notable", because it is the one and only Starship Troopers fan film worldwide. At least according Wikipedia. Thoughts about that? Stw 001 (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. That is not a valid keep argument. It would be helpful if you reviewed the relevant guidelines going forward. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stw 001: If you look at some of the pages in that category and see what kinds of sources they use, it might be a good litmus test for what this page will need. It's very possible that the fan film might become notable in the future as people notice and write about it, which would make this WP:TOOSOON. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that are my thoughts too. I wrote it already here somewhere, there is yet something ongoing. Within next months there will be more results I have heard already. Lets stay patient. Thank you for supporting this idea. Stw 001 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2023 (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 merge to Warhammer 40,000#T'au. ✗plicit 14:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

T'au Empire

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

This is a lengthy plot summary with some comments about related miniature games, but the topic sadly seems to fail WP:GNG. The few references cited (note the article is mostly unreferenced, with much WP:OR to be concerned about) are not independent and come from game books, fan of semi-official blogs or in one case, the White Dwarf magazine published by the same company that publishes the game. BEFORE shows any how-to-play (or paint, or mod) guides for this factin, but nothing that suggests the faction is notable outside of the game. The best WP:ATD I can suggest would be merging some referenced content to Warhammer_40,000#T'au (a section which appears unreferenced). I'll end by saying similar merge and redirects have been done to a number of other WH40K factions (ex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eldar (Warhammer 40,000), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necron (Warhammer 40,000)) and arguably should be done for the remainder. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main WH40K article, just unnecessary plotcruft. Dronebogus (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Warhammer 40,000#T'au. The sources I could find are all about the wider Warhammer 40,000 IP and this article's subject is discussed as an aspect of that wider subject, such as reviews of their specific Codex (rulebook) or the faction being included in games. I'm very familiar with 40K and there are wikis like Lexicanum that go into more in-universe detail than would be appropriate at Wikipedia (T'au Empire and T'au) so there are already websites where this level of cruft is appropriate and appreciated, but per Wikipedia's notability guidelines it doesn't warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. BOZ (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Topic seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:OR. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2023 (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 merge to List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: Philip Hinchcliffe Presents

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only things I found in my WP:BEFORE search were brief mentions, promotional material, and fan sites that fail WP:RS. As an alternative to deletion I think this article should be redirected to List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish. OliveYouBean (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish transcludes this article - so deletion as suggested would require migration of the table to that article. Other than that I abstain from voting. Dresken (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish - I found no evidence that the subject is independently notable. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish, unnecessary duplication. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2023 (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 merge to The Twelve (comics). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Wonder (Timely Comics)

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

Minor comic book character that seems to fail WP:GNG. BEFORE didn't reveal anything substantial, just a few mentions in passing, the article is a pure plot summary+publication history, with no reception or analysis. The best WP:ATD I can think of is redirecting this to The Twelve (comics). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 1 January 2023 (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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Twelve (comics) comics as an WP:ATD

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:ATD. Does not seem to pass the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2023 (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. Consensus was keep (non-admin closure) `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 01:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talamasca

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

Seems like a minor plot element, failing WP:GNG (SIGCOV). I can't even suggest a reasonable WP:ATD to redirect this to. The article is a pure plot summary, and its only redeeming quality is that it's referenced, but mentions in passing don't suffice to show notability. PS. Was prodded by User:Avilich , prod was removed by User:Spinningspark with "has entries in horror encyclopaedias". But the entry in The Vampire Book: The Encyclopedia of the Undead, despite being two pages long, seems to be a pure plot summary, and that fails WP:NOTPLOT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom statement is defective in that RS'es cannot fail WP:NOTPLOT as it only applies to how Wikipedia writes about fictional topics, not how our sources do. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could the brief contents of the article be merged into another? Hellbus (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hellbus Possibly, but what we have is a tiny amount of plot summary from several books that effectively amounts to "this fictional organization appears in book A, B, C". Is this even worth merging? The organization is presumably mentioned in the plot summaries of those books anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Hellbus that discussion of plot in reliable sources is not the same as a Wikipedia editor's plot summary of the source work. The former adds to notability, the latter does not. The former tells us which plot elements reliable sources believe are significant. If that was all we had, that would still justify inclusion in Wikipedia (in some form), but when I deprodded the article I had much more to say on this than the nom's quote of my short edit summary would lead one to believe. I named a number of sources from which out-of-universe discussion can be extracted. You have to look for it, but it is there. Here are two quotes;

Together with Maharet's tapestry and the matrilineal family tree, the Talamasca provides a lineage, a coherent mythology,...
— Linda Badley, Writing Horror and the Body

In one sense or another, there are a number of anthropologists in the Mayfair trilogy. I wish to concentrate briefly , however, on the Talamasca, Ashlar, and Rowan Mayfair. These three provide sufficient examples to establish Rice's anthropological sensibility.
— Gary G. Roberts, The Gothic World of Anne Rice

SpinningSpark 13:49, 7 January 2023 (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 speedy keep. Almost all consensus was to keep this article. (non-admin closure) `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 15:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krakoa

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

Just a lot of fancruft. Article does not indicate that this is a notable element of the comic books. Zero in-depth coverage to show any real-world notability. Everything is in-universe. User:Nekivik^{TT me} 10:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. ^{TT me} 11:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current article is really bad, but as shown at the last AfD, independent sources do exist that discuss Krakoa in a real-world context (e.g., The Mutant Land: How the Island Krakoa Dictates the Mutant Society in House of X and Representations of Israel, literal and allegorical, in X-Men comics), so the subject is notable. OliveYouBean (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the results of the last AFD, there is sufficient sourcing to show it as notable. BOZ (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: K because then the information will not be deleted if someone want to edit with references in distant future. Notable sources that pass the minimum standards of GNG in last Afd were to be used on this page. Those sources aren't added in this page till date. While the references are almost same as during first Afd. Unless those sources showing real-world notability are being added, the page is still not notable.

Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of WP:N is that the sources just have to exist for the subject to be notable, not that they have to be currently used in the article. At WP:ARTN it says Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. (emphasis mine) So even if the sources aren't used in the article, it is still notable and the page should still be kept. OliveYouBean (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

This page clearly fails WP:NOTPLOT: Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia does treat works of fiction in an encylopedic manner. That means if the sources exist to be able to do this, the subject should get an article. The sources exist to be able to do this (I linked a couple in my vote), so the subject passes WP:N and should have an article. Notability is about the subject, not the article. OliveYouBean (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OliveYouBean I was pointing that page fails WP:NOTPLOT, one of the main reasons for getting deleted as per WP:DEL-REASON. See instruction page for 14th point of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Only one above-mentioned source is reliable. Just existing in-world notability sources doesn't mean it is always reliable. According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable; so Representations of Israel, literal and allegorical, in X-Men comics fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The journal uses a double-blind peer review process for all submissions. Taylor & Francis Online is a reliable repository that would not lie about that. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: K per my rationale in the prior AfD, which can be summarized as: yes, this is potentially notable. No, the article does not show this. This is currently fancruft and should be just a redirect, until someone actually bothers to read the sources found and write a section about reception or analysis. I'd be happy to vote keep when that happens. Until that happens, this does not meet WP:NOTPLOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article's subject meets WP:GNG. Nothing has changed since the previous AfD in terms of notability in that regard. The article may need work, but deletion is not cleanup. I'm also concerned about how certain editors were notified of this discussion, as only those who have suggested not keeping the article previously seem to have been notified. They notified the previous AfD's nom and notified the only other active editor who suggested something other than to keep at the previous AfD, and skipped over the seven editors who suggested keeping the article. They also notified an editor who suggested redirecting a similar article and made a similar argument about the state of this article as the nom. I'm not saying it was done maliciously or in bad faith but if we're going to individually notify editors of an AfD, it shouldn't only be those who would be likely to agree with you. - Aoidh (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That being the case, I'd say it's fair to ping @Jc37, @Rtkat3, @Haleth, @Jackattack1597, @Daranios, @Qwaiiplayer, and @Rhino131 from the last AFD as well as its closer @4meter4 to see if they maintain their opinions from 15 months ago, or have anything new to add. Additionally, I noticed something weird in this AFD, where the nominator edited a comment by another user which I reverted, then they did it again but self-reverted, which is odd enough, but then the user whose comments were edited changed it back to what the nominator had done, so I'm not exactly sure what that means but it is unusual. BOZ (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this before because they tried to ping me while editing someone else's message, which just seemed... bizarre? Since then things have become (in my opinion) weirder. They went on a spree of notifying users about this AfD, then promptly retired due to "limited knowledge of various wikipedia rules and processes". I have no idea what that's about. I hope they weren't discouraged by people's messages at their talk page. OliveYouBean (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ I am not sure why I was pinged to this discussion. I did not offer an opinion in the first or second AFDs. I was the neutral closer of the 2nd AFD which I closed as keep because there were no votes for deletion in the 2nd nomination other than the nominator. Consensus in that discussion was clearly to keep the article. I have no opinion on this particular topic. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since there were plenty of sources to establish N for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiet Council of Krakoa, it follows logically that those also establish notability for the parent topic. Both editors in favor of redirection admit that regular editing could fix any current problems with the page... so there's really no case for deletion at all. Jclemens (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD for Quiet Council resulted in a merge/redirect to Krakoa. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the previous discussions already noted; per Jclemens, above, who I think said it better than I could've; per everyone else on this page; and really per common sense. Sigh. Maybe we need to take another look at how subjective GNG is, if we're going to continually see it merely being repeatedly used as code for WP:IDONTLIKEIT... - jc37 12:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me the argumentation for deletion is again based on the current state of the article, which is explicitely not decisive according to WP:NEXIST. It has been shown in this and previous deletion discussions that secondary sources exist to establish notability. The way to solve the problem with too much plot summary is therefore not deletion but improvement with the help of these sources. There is no deadline for such improvements, and no specific Wikipedian is required to do anything, but as usual I'd expect those most offended by the current imperfect state of the article to be the first ones to take action for improvement. Daranios (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims as last time and the claims of @OliveYouBean:, @BOZ:, @Aoidh:, @Jclemens:, @Jc37:, and @Daranios:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous discussion and I agree with the above conversation that the argument for this deletion is not particularly strong. Deletion is not cleanup after all. Aoba47 (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2023 (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.

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Wonder (Timely Comics)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talamasca}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Krakoa_(3rd_nomination)}}
 [[Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting|Science fiction]]
 [[Category:WikiProject Science Fiction]]