Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 15: Line 15:
==Science fiction and fantasy==
==Science fiction and fantasy==
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosplay Fetish Battle Drones}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fantasy_Viking}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fantasy_Viking}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magik}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magik}}

Revision as of 15:22, 19 July 2024

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

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. With one of the two Delete views changing to Keep after reviewing the expanded sourcing, we now have a consensus to keep the page. Owen× ☎ 18:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplay Fetish Battle Drones

Cosplay Fetish Battle Drones (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 that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Of the included sources, the only one that is a full length review is not from a reliable source. The rest are just small blurbs that could not really be considered a full review. Searches using both names the film was released under did not turn up any kind of coverage or reviews in reliable sources that would indicate being able to pass WP:NFILM. Rorshacma (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - A lot of those sources are ones I found in my searches that I either did not consider to be reliable sources and/or not full-length reviews - many of these are just a paragraph or less, which I don't see as passing WP:NFILM's requirements of a "full-length" review. But, I would be happy for others to weigh in on whether or not they would be valid for establishing notability. Rorshacma (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Regarding HorrorNews.Net, for example, it's a full review (in their style) and the site is considered reliable by the project Horror (see also two threads at the Reliable sources noticeboard, the latest one insisting that especially pre-2020 reviews (roughly; after which they seem to have accepted to make paid reviews) may be considered acceptable; and that particular review is to terribly negative that I don't suspect a minute it was not independent). Many of the other include a paragraph (significant) or less, true, but some, more (see BFI website, which I find significant). I included a few sources that are obviously not independent, to show the article can be improved/verified. I should have organised this or maybe edited the page directly, but I started here, "first to knock, first admitted". Again, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Early !voters - please review and comment on the greatly expanded sourcing and content added since the AfD was opened. Thanks!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:31, 26 July 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 redirect‎ to Vikings#In modern popular culture without prejudice against selective merger. Owen× ☎ 12:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Viking

Fantasy Viking (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)

Essay-like article that relies on WP:SYNTH from mostly unreliable sources. The sources that are reliable are not about Fantasy Vikings, but only used to support some part or argument within the article. Some of this info can be relevant additions in Vikings, Viking Age, Viking revival or historical fantasy, if it's not already there, but Fantasy Viking fails WP:GNG. There may be justification for some kind of broader article about the reception history of Vikings or the Viking Age in popular culture, but I don't think this article can be transformed into that. Ffranc (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blockhaj: Said PhD thesis could be a good source of commentary, and the Google Scholar search might yield something more. Daranios (talk) 10:01, 22 July 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. Withdrawn due to the discovery of more sources during the AfD. I am now confident it can pass GNG in some form. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magik

Magik (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)

This character was recently moved to primary topic despite her notability being extremely weak. The majority of reception is from content farm-related sites such as ScreenRant that don't really distinguish between major and incredibly minor comic book characters. At least in the Video Game WikiProject, we consider Looper/CBR unreliable and ScreenRant inadmissible, leaving almost no reception that passes GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reception section may be weakly referenced, but that doesn't disqualify the whole article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @UtherSRG: The article is mostly plot summary when you put aside the reception. So I would say the entire article is pretty much disqualified if the reception fails notability, unless there is something I missed? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think Looper+SyFy are enough (in-depth, go beyond plot summaries). Looper is not a great source, but this depends on the particular article; that one seems relatively well written and signed by non-anon writer. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus Looper is considered an unreliable source, and a content farm at best. I wouldn't consider it a viable source for this discussion, even if it's well written. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to Zxcvbnm: Were Google Books and Google Scholar included in the WP:BEFORE search? I don't yet have time look into this myself more closely, but these searches look promising, as do the individual hits of Marvel's Mutants - The X-Men Comics of Chris Claremont and Superheroines and the Epic Journey, p. 244-249. Daranios (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those appear to be talking about Magik (1983 comic book), I think, which shares the same name as the character. Would not be surprised if the comic were notable, but character wasn't. I did find an entry for her in the DK Marvel Encyclopedia, but it has no actual critical reception, raising WP:INDISCRIMINATE concerns, and a couple of SIGCOV are not yet sufficient. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm Did you look into this query? It seems promising, but I am tired today and don't have time to access paywalled sources. Ex. [1] "But his discussion of Illyana Rasputin’s ‘Magik’ saga devolves into a patchwork of radical" (and others). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: As you were looking for another extended source, what do you think of The New Mutants - Superheroes and the Radical Imagination of American Comics, the chapter mostlyl dedicated to the character and her implications p. 248-266? Not all of it is accessible (to me), and there is quite a bit of plot summary, but it is quite a number of pages and p. 248 already has important analyis. Daranios (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for actually being rational and not assuming I am some grudge-filled troll. From what I can see, it does count as significant coverage, though it is coverage for Ilyana and her alter-egoes, not just Magik. This seems to imply the page should be renamed to her actual name. I might attempt to do that, but either way it does seem like notability has been shown with Syfy, the DK encyclopedia and this source, so I will voluntarily withdraw the nom, though I can't close it unless @Pokelego999: also agrees so as not to be a supervote. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm I'm satisfied with the sourcing found and am willing to change my vote to Keep so as to avoid a supervote and allow you to withdraw it for further work on the article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. I did a brief search myself and found little, though ping me if anyone finds anything that could be considered significant. Any of the sources brought up have very little backing beyond a potential one or two. There's some coverage, but she appears to fall short of the coverage threshold. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nom once again seems triggered by prejudice against a certain medium and the idea of cleanup work. Only done a very quick Google (like the nominator *rimshot*) but there seems to be a bit more for Illyana Rasputin rather than the code-name. My X-Men is faded but IIRC she spent a good chunk of time not as a Majik, and was referred to by name an unusually high amount for the period. Possibles: - [2] [3][4] [5][6] Presumably those don't count for some nebulous reason, though. And then there's the pile of reliable publications focusing on Bronze and Copper Age comics that shock fucking horror aren't indexed on Google - Amazing Heroes, Back Issue and Wizard are right in the wheelhouse of an X-Men character. But I'm not putting more effort into a vote than someone has into the nom. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim of "triggered by prejudice" is WP:ADHOMINEM and outright false. It's unbelievable how you would accuse someone of hardly looking for the subject while then putting a list of sources featuring brief mentions and failing to expound.
    Unfortunately I can't access most of these due to copyright, but from the ones I could see, it still seems trivial. Which ones have SIGCOV here, exactly? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clutch those pearls. Not putting more work into a vote than you've put into a nomination. Not re-gearing my work because you like video games more than comics. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the claims of @UtherSRG:, @Piotrus:, and @BoomboxTestarossa:. If the article is saved, a brief mentioning of Amanda Sefton operating as Magik can be listed in a section called "Other characters named Magik" in light of this recent renaming. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The book The Ages of the X-Men: Essays on the Children of the Atom in Changing Times mentions Magik on pages 169, 227, and 229. It looks like they may have a mention or two in the book The Claremont Run: Subverting Gender in the X-Men. Definitely mentions in the book The Psychology of Superheroes. Also mentions in How Superheroes Model Community: Philosophically, Communicatively, Relationally and Antiheroes: Heroes, Villains, and the Fine Line Between. You can find these results here. (I find this kind of search better than just Google Books.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So in summary we have coverage of the character as such, as well as coverage focussing on her What If? chapter (e.g. Polygon) and her own series, which also have something to say on the character even if that's not the man topic. So in total I see the notability requirement as fullfilled. Daranios (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD lays bare inherent problems with the way the system is used by some nominators.
    • Before it was nominated there appear to have been no cleanup tags warning of the content issues on the page.
    • The nominator has likewise not engaged by making queries or suggestions on the talk page, and in short has made absolutely no attempt to put any effort into improving the article, or make any other editors aware of their reservations.
    • Of course, you don't have to do any of that, but it's hard to assume good faith when an experienced editor ignores those steps in favour of escalating to AfD, which means everyone interested in the page suddenly has to jump through hoops for a week on the whim of one editor.
    • Tagging an article for deletion or nominating for AfD takes seconds; properly researching a page - especially if we're not talking just mashing three words into a search engine, and using paper resources - can take hours or even days, and whoever's doing the research may already be researching something else. It basically forces an issue no-one was aware even was an issue 72 hours ago.
    • As we're talking about a fictional character from a major publisher with clearly *some* degree of notability that would leave the term some use as a redirect or a merge to a list article/page, but again that has been ignored in favour of nominating for deletion. Unless, of course, the nominator is gaming the system and thinks it should be a redirect or merge, and is using the AfD process to force the issue. Again, assuming good faith can be challenging in such circumstances.
    • AfDs (at least in Comics & Animation) are mainly contested by the same 6-8 people, most of whom just pick an entrenched position; AfDs are a niche area for many editors, and the process gives a disproportionate say to the dogmatic. Most of whom who then do absolutely none of the work their nominations have created for others.
    • AfD has its' uses but honestly over the past year or two flaws in the mechanism are becoming obvious, and processes put in place to swiftly remove obvious spam/advert/troll pages are being misused. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is making the mistaken assumption that a certain amount of work can save a non-notable page from removal, if I thought it was feasible to save the article I wouldn't have nominated it in the first place.
    I fully admit it may end up as a keep result due to various obscure sources found during the process, but at the time of nomination there was nothing immediately evident online or in the article that it passed GNG. If it does it would be entirely due to sources discovered afterwards by significant research that the article creator did not do. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's an assumption that many potentially notable pages need people actually making calm, patient, friendly evaluation of their notability rather than some passing random just yelling "DELETE!!1!1!". Obviously there are pages out there with questionable notability, but you've made no attempt to actually objectively see if this is one of them in any sort of constructive manner. You've just tried to put everyone in a ticking clock situation, sat back and demanded people jump through your hoops.
    • There are the "obscure sources" that I turned up in five minutes on Google on my phone. At work. And it's still not entirely clear why they didn't show up in your Before search.
    • It is highly, highly possible that the various article editors were unaware of the various nebulous, shifting definitions of what sources are and aren't admissible (CBR used to be a pretty decent site, for instance). There's no reason to assume anyone editing the article recently was totally unaware of any issues with the sourcing or notability because no-one had actively raised any concerns until you slapped a deletion notice on it one day. I mean, for someone who seems to take great umbrage about my assumptions you don't seem shy of making them about other people.
    • Wikipedia's standards have shifted dramatically over the past few years, and there are tools to help work with the wide number articles that could do with being raised to them. Tag it as better sources needed or whatever, give it a month, let someone who knows something, anything about the area have a look. There might not be an official process but there's an array of sensible, good faith steps that can be taken - otherwise it looks like you just randomly want an article about a particular X-Men character GONE RIGHT NOW, which naturally makes it look like it's just on your shitlist for some reason (to be fair, the whole Darkchild thing was repetitive as fuck).
    • That you only searched online shows a lack of basic knowledge of the medium - many heavyweight comics sources like CBJ (and thus Amazing Heroes, which is defunct but owned by Fantagraphics) and Back Issue! do not maintain full online archives for profitability reasons, and the same goes for a lot of books due to low print runs.
    • This again reflects poorly on your Before, and therefore your ability to judge the feasibility of saving articles. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of this non policy based, totally irrelevant yelling about how bad Wikipedia is, just please tell me the single best source you have found that is not Syfy. I will gladly withdraw the article if there is a clear and obvious SIGCOV I missed, demonstrating my good faith. I think just one more will put it over the edge into notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again - not jumping through your arbitrary hoops. And you withdrawing this is meaningless - you've already wasted enough of everyone's time with your shoddy nomination and subsequent evasion of questions, and your judgement in this particular area is clearly suspect. Going through the sources people have already posted would be a way of demonstrating your good faith. I mean, it should be easy - they would have all shown up in any halfway competent BEFORE undertaken for abrupt outright deletion of a long-standing article with many contributors, so it should be really, really easy for you to dismiss them.
    Wikipedia is not bad. It's great, but a lot of it is built on people being cooperative and constructive; like most nice things, it's just vulnerable to people who want to tear stuff down. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:01, 19 July 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. I see a consensus right now to Keep this article but an acknowledgement that it needs a lot of work. I hope interested editors can address any problems that still exist through editing. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in His Dark Materials

Locations in His Dark Materials (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)

Does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of fictional concepts from a book series. Much of this is WP:OR in both content and in the choices of what to cover. Jontesta (talk) 05:13, 14 July 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 no consensus‎. Currently, those arguing keep point to extensive coverage of the topic in various sources. Those arguing to delete or redirect the article criticize the reliability and independence of some of these sources. It does not seem that there is clear consensus right now as to whether the subject meets the general notability guidelines. There is a solid push to redirect and/or merge the article, but again there does not seem to be a clear consensus to do so. I am skeptical that time will result in more clarity, so I am closing this discussion for now. Given the article's deletion and recreation history, I will not be surprised to see a fourth AfD in the future. Malinaccier (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons)

AfDs for this article:
Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons) (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)

AfD'ed in 2007 and 2016 (both closed as keep), I closed the 2020 AfD as "delete", the article was later draftified but then moved back to main space without much change nearly 3 years later. My WP:G4 speedy nomination was declined with the note "this may yet need to face a 3rd AfD". WP:Notability per WP:GNG is still in question. This article should either be fully and officially be re-accepted in WP's D&D coverage including being listed in Template:D&D topics, or be re-deleted. – sgeureka t•c 10:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - That article is simply a summary of the information about Centaurs taken directly from Mythic Odysseys of Theros, and offers no actual commentary or analysis. It is simply a summary of the official information presented in the book. The same goes for this article, which is the only other one in the search that provides more than minor coverage - its simply summarizing the exact content from the official book, without a single bit of commentary or analysis. Rorshacma (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have the book, but there does appear to be commentary ("For players entering a D&D campaign with a lot of fierce adventure, a Pheres Raider might be a good choice." with a link to an article about Icewind Dale). It ain't deep, but secondary sources don't need to be to be, well, secondary sources. Hobit (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is yet another iteration of the prejudice against game content in mythical creatures articles. The topic of this is article 'centaur', not 'centaurs in Dungeons & Dragons' but is maintained in a separate article due to SIZE and other considerations. Merging it all (not "delete by calling it a merge and eventually deleting all of the content") to Centaur would be most appropriate, but failing that, keeping it as a separate article focusing on the game aspect of the same topic is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Centaurs get their own heading in Keith Ammann's The Monsters Know What They're Doing, which in combination with the content already in the article is good enough for me. Someone might want to add content from TMKWTD, though. BD2412 T 17:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simple gamecruft with no real reception worth noting. Wikipedia is not FANDOM, which would normally host articles like this. Centaurs in popular culture is equally as bad, so I don't support redirecting there, and I am not swayed by ScreenRant, a content farm site. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to Centaurs in popular culture (or Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons), or merge as compromise. Several sources do not meet our WP:RS standards, and in total they do not meet WP:SIGCOV. I appreciate the editors who are striving for WP:CONSENSUS by suggesting more than one !vote preference. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SIGCOV is present, merging is impossible at this point due to the size of the article. Agree with @Jclemens basing on this essay. Vorann Gencov (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Honestly, coverage before 5th edition probably doesn't get over the WP:N bar. But there is now a surprisingly large amount of material covering this topic. An entire article on the latest iteration of this. Another article which analyzes a primary source on the topic. Third-party coverage of the topic [7] exists. Just the 3 secondary sources I've listed puts it over the WP:N bar. Hobit (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Wikipedia:VALNET Screen Rant does not contribute to the notability of a subject. Is there an idea of RPGBot being notable? It seems very much like a blog site and I'm not sure on the reliability of the specific author. I am also not certain on the reliability Belloflostsouls, though that one at least seems to be part of a company. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, as I mentioned above, that particular Screenrant article is nothing but a shortened rewording of the official content taken directly from Mythic Odysseys of Theros. Which is pretty typical of the kind of low-quality churnalism that Valent sources tend to produce, that offers no actual commentary or analysis of their own, and simply regurgitates official information as an "article". Rorshacma (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:VALNET specifically calls Screen Rant reliable enough for things other than BLPs. There is certainly no consensus in the RfC that it cannot be used to meet WP:N. BoLS is certainly meets the Wikipedia definition of reliable. RPGnet is a WP:RS/SPS case. I quite comfortable saying the author is widely acknowledged as an expert and is well-known for his work. But that one is debatable. Hobit (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability due to concerns over their content farming." The only exceptions are when there's already significant reception that Valnet can be used to augment, or if it's from TheGamer post August 2020, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Screen Rant does not help meet Notability, and per Rorshacma, it's only rewording official content, and not offering its own perspective, meaning that even if it did it isn't saying much either way.
    The RfC on Screen Rant, the only discussion on that specific site AFAICT, didn't reach that conclusion. I'm not sure where that line came from, but the specific discussion on this topic didn't get there. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's literally in the basic description of Valnet sources in the section (The paragraph above the individual cells). There's case by case uses per each source's use clause (Namely TheGamer being considered reliable and stuff like Android Police and MakeUseOf being considered generally unreliable in all use cases) but most sources that fall into the marginally reliable category tend to fall under the umbrella description I quoted above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BoLS seems to be mostly discussing dev info, and any Reception seems to largely pertain to how it impacts the gameplay of the specific game. That kind of discussion is iffy, since unless it's something like Brawl Meta Knight, it typically isn't able to prove notability independently of the subject, as the discussion is entirely around its association with the subject. As for RPGnet, I can't speak on the author since I have no idea about anything related to them, so I'll leave consensus on that source with editors more experienced than me on that matter. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The BoLS article is solely about Centaurs in D&D. I don't know how it could get any more on point than that. It is specific to 5e, but I don't see how that's relevant unless you're arguing that we can't have this article but could have one on the narrower topic of Centaurs in 5e D&D. And I do know a lot about RPGNet. All I can say with certainty is that they have a reasonable claim to being an expert in the field. I think I've beat this topic to death, so unless specifically requested, I'll drop out of the discussion and let others have their say. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. The bulk of the sources presented are VALNET sources, which are do not contribute to the GNG bar. Most other sources are minimal for the benefits of this article, and I'm not seeing much presented here in terms of significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus as of yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <nowrap>Aydoh8 (talk | contribs)</nowrap> 14:42, 24 July 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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jessup (writer)

Paul Jessup (writer) (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a writer of speculative fiction. I have found and added one reference, but it is either an interview or an article by a friend (named author who introduces the article, but the bulk of it is by Jessup). The article already references the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which I think is a reliable source, but as the only reference which demonstrates notability I don't think it's fully evidenced. The article only needs a couple of reviews from reliable sources to meet WP:NAUTHOR, but I haven't been able to find any. Unless anyone else can, I don't think the article meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've added the PW review to the article. Haven't added the other as it is just one sentence. Tacyarg (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just one sentence? Try [10] Geschichte (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've added that to the article. Tacyarg (talk) 22:59, 14 July 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Vaillancourt

François Vaillancourt (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about an artist, and not found any references from reliable, independent sources to add. I do not see that he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:ARTIST. NB an earlier version of the article says the artist has worked on cover art for sci-fi books, so have sorted this in to that category. Tacyarg (talk) 21:50, 13 July 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 redirect‎ to Batman#Technology. Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batcopter

Batcopter (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)

Far cry from cult imaginery of Batmobile or even Batplane, this is poorly referenced fancruft. Batman occasionally used a helicopter - this could be mentioned in Batman#Technology or in the Batplane article. No need for a stand-alone list of trivia in which comics and other media this happened (WP:GNG fail, with WP:V being an issue as well as much content here is unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheBritinator (talk) 03:01, 16 July 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.

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Science_fiction_and_fantasy&oldid=1235496130"