Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

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:
  1. 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

Oldest Doctor Who Cast Members

Oldest Doctor Who Cast Members (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)

An indiscriminate list (can be considered listcruft) of some of the oldest actors in the Doctor Who series by age. There is no clear relevance between the TV show and age unlike sports and age would have, so this is very trivial. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But, why is it problematic? Spectritus (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Spectritus: My nomination states the article's problems. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be deleted just for lacking sources? In this case, articles are usually just left with a "More sources needed" notice, nothing more. Spectritus (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the ages of those actors, you can just check their Wikipedia/IMDb pages. Spectritus (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IMDB is not a reliable source, and notability guidelines for lists and general topics indeed require sourcing. If you have reliable sources that discuss this subject (not individual entries on the list) by all means offer them. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page may not be relevant enough to stay. But, the English Wikipedia doesn't consider many websites as "reliable", so it's difficult. And if I may add, I understand it needs to be strict, but the English Wikipedia is way too strict compared to other Wikipedia languages. And it should be understood that if a topic isn't covered by the biggest websites, it doesn't necessarily mean it's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Spectritus (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not nominate it for its lack of sources, despite that being an issue (albeit a fixable one). I nominated it because it is an indiscriminate list of some of the oldest actors in the Doctor Who series by age and that there is no clear relevance between the TV show and age. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia, and articles that are very specific but with little relevance when connected such as "List of film actors by favorite color" or "List of celebrities with brown hair" should not be published to Wikipedia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "relevance between the TV show and age" is that it's a show that has been ongoing for a very long time and so, some cast members have lived to a very old age. Spectritus (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doctor Who being an old show doesn't make assessing the show's oldest in age actors any less trivial because it's still a collection of facts that aren't directly associated with the topic of the show, making it listcruft. A list of actors of the show along, or its episodes or franchised media, would be counter-examples to listcruft. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: List clearly has no real relevance. Unless the age of the actors is truly relevant to the TV show, then there is no reason why this list should exist.
Noah 💬 23:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could it at least be put in the draftspace instead of being deleted? Spectritus (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting it into draft space would be a step towards putting it back into article space. On the basis that the subject can never be encyclopaedic, I would oppose. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It really has nothing to do with the Doctor Who canon itself as it is totally unrelated to when they were in the show or what age they were at the time. All it is is a list of long-living actors who also happened to have a part in Doctor Who during their career. Per nom, it is indiscriminate. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You all have a point. Spectritus (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An INDISCRIMINATE list that does not meet any notability criteria. My thoughts echo those of every voter above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to maintain an archive of this list for use on Tardis Data Core, the Wikipedia for Doctor Who. User:Northern Hills.

Untitled Web Series About a Space Traveler Who Can Also Travel Through Time

AfDs for this article:
Untitled Web Series About a Space Traveler Who Can Also Travel Through Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has a lot of sources but nothing particurly in depth. Most nothing beyond basic release info, plot recap and casting info fails WP:NTV Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who Is Dr Who

Who Is Dr Who (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)

My deletion proposal:

Found no evidence of notability. Only source I found discussing this album was this self-published zine.

The proposal was removed by Mushy Yank who suggested a merger instead; however, given the lack of coverage, I don't think it'd be DUE to give this any more of a place than it already has in its tiny entry in List of Doctor Who music releases. I suppose a redirect there would be appropriate. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo

Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo (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 page was BLARed in October 2023, and now a duplicate article was created at Draft:Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo (Tv Show), which I moved to draft because of the duplication. Both pages should be merged if kept. CycloneYoris talk! 08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death's Head

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

Fails WP:GNG article is almost all list of apperences + plot summary. Very limited devolpement info and no reception best I could found was this [1] everything else was related to him getting a toy Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm expecting you to actually engage, but what exactly is wrong with Starburst and Amazing Heroes as sources? Beyond them not showing up when you mash words into Google? Not doing any digging until someone lays out what exactly is wrong with the sourcing present, because at the moment it looks like yet another I Don't Like It nomination from this editor. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to whatever list of fictional characters from his most relevant franchise is. Pure plot summary and least of appearances - fails WP:GNG. WP:NOTPLOT, WP:NOTCATALOGUE, WP:FANCRUFT... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: D in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is a lot of publication history that goes beyond just plot summaries. The article is sourced to Wizard, Bleeding Cool, Amazing Heroes, and Starburst. If either the nature of the publications or the nature of the coverage is not adequate to establish notability, that should be demonstrated here before merging into the list. Rjjiii (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That, to be honest, is the nub of my dissatisfaction with this nomination. Those four sources have been considered reliable for plenty of comic articles I've submitted that have been approved as new articles, as have others I believe to have more detail that would help with this article (JDM, Slings & Arrows, Crikey!, possibly even Speakeasy or Back Issue), and generally seem to be considered strong specialist sources. I would like to hear why those sources aren't considered reliable and/or worthy of even consideration before I bother sourcing anything else as it they are somehow suddenly not good enough basically anything else featuring comics is also going to be. And that is going to call the notability of a number of articles I've built around similar sourcing into question, so we might as well nominate all of those and get this shit done. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A brief overview of the avalible sources
      • Starburst: Interview doenst count for notability
      • Bleeding Cool 1: Just a recap of appearances
      • Bleeding Cool 2: "x posted a tweet about y"
      • Bleeding Cool 3: Literally just one passing mention
      • Amazing Heroes: Seems decent
      • Wizard: Cant tell as its not on the web but by the title it seems like its talking about Marvel UK and not the character.
      • Comic Book Resources: Another passing meniton of a different Death's Hand character.
      If you can WP:HAY this than by all means go ahead but I cant find anything else usable for notability Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are you dismissing a source that you haven't actually read? That and your begruding acceptance of Amazing Heroes goes to show that your before was entirely online. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. From memory, my re-write was performed largely using sources that had cropped up on another semi-related project, and was likely directed at sourcing up what was already there and possibly removing bald inaccuracies; as the article wasn't new it was never meant to be a finished, definite work (and not just because that's not how Wikipedia should work). As such I believe my decision to not write a "Reception" section was down to choice as I probably moved back to what I was 'meant' to be doing, rather than there being a lack of any material that could be used. As said, there are likely review sources of both character and selected appearances out there, just probably not on Google. I say this every time someone does a web-based before, but there are always some who choose to ignore it - a lot of decent specialist resources are not online, at least not in an easily-searchable format. But I am not pulling physical media from storage four days before Christmas if someone somewhere has just decided specialist publications don't count anymore. Once again though, this is a nomination of an article that just needs work but will likely get deleted because AfD is a broken system and you all just like deleting things. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (personally I'd have centred the article around the publication with the development of the character and guest appearances as background and DHII as a separate article along the same lines, and probably left it unfinished with thoughts of going back one day, but there's no point in doing that at this juncture either until someone finishes deciding on the magic list of reliable sources) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Without anything other than primary and unreliable sources, there is nothing to keep here. Jontesta (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are unreliable? Some may or may confer notability, but I'd be interested to hear which are unreliable. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus. But if this article has a Redirect or Merge outcome, is List of Marvel Comics characters: D an acceptable target article/section?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If (ha, joking, when) the article is redirected to the increasingly unwieldy, poorly sourced, hard to edit and hard to read character list which editor is going to compressing and rewriting it to be an appropriate level of detail? Or is it just going to be the usual "Redirect and leave it to someone else at some point probably"? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The North American Discworld Convention

The North American Discworld Convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BEFORE only showed unreliable sources such as blogs and fan sites, or other passing mentions. This does not have reliable secondary sources to achieve WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Science_fiction_and_fantasy