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.

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

Blaggard's Moon

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

Per WP:NBOOK. I found absolutely no RS coverage. Astaire (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Astaire (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalayna Price

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

Author best known for a 7-book fantasy series. I can only find reviews in Publishers Weekly for books number 1 [1], 5 [2], 6 [3], and 7 [4] in the series. Book 6 also has a second review in Library Journal [5]; however, this is the only one of the series that (barely) meets WP:NBOOK, and so I don't think the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. Astaire (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Astaire (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cold in the Earth

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

Book that fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not exactly very notable, but there is two reviews, which should be enough for NBOOK. Review in Publishers Weekly (here) and Brazosport Facts (here). Also seems to be a review in Booklist (Gale A77135100), but it's just a sentence, and the rest is other books. Also possibly one in The Armchair Detective Volume 27, but I can't find a copy online. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A good alternative might be for us to make a series page and have the individual entries redirect there. I'm a big fan of having series pages as opposed to individual book entries unless the books are exceptionally notable, like Twilight or ASOIAF/AGOT. If I have time, I'll try to make a page for this, but if anyone else wants to tackle this, feel free. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tharizdun

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional deity from D&D. Reception is limited to two listicles or such. WP:GNG fail. BEFORE fails to find anything. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest merging reception to the List of Dungeons & Dragons deities and redirecting this there (our article is just a list of appearances in D&D media and fancrufty description of in-universe history etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Games, and Religion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refs 1, 6, 7, and 27 provide significant IRS or acceptable SPS coverage of the topic. Reception isn't mandatory, and even if it was, non-RS'es would be sufficient for that. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Inasmuch as reception is objective the reporting of a non-WP:Reliable source is not reliable, and inasmuch as it is subjective the opinion of a non-WP:Reliable source is not WP:DUE. TompaDompa (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, actually. As I've been told elsewhere recently, DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content, so there cannot possibly be a DUE violation if no RS has any viewpoints, because there's nothing to privilege there. Yeah, not sure I believe that, but even so: requiring the RS to be in one section for a fictional topic isn't supported by any policy or guideline to the best of my knowledge, even though it is certainly a best practice to include RS'ed reception when available. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - The very first sentence of WP:NPOV says All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. In other words, the viewpoints must come from WP:Reliable sources. I'm not sure quite what you are trying to say with DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content, so there cannot possibly be a DUE violation if no RS has any viewpoints, because there's nothing to privilege there, but my point was that if we're talking about the subjective parts of the reception, i.e. opinions/viewpoints, we need to use WP:Reliable sources. It would be rather nonsensical to say that the text of WP:DUE—Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.—somehow implies that we would defer to sources that are not reliable for their viewpoints if there are no reliable sources to use. Indeed, WP:DUE goes on to say Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. More importantly, DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content is technically correct but a bit misleading/WP:WikiLawyer-ish. Firstly, the content equivalent—WP:PROPORTION, which says that articles are supposed to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject—is just slightly further down from the WP:DUE section of WP:NPOV, and "due" is often used as shorthand for this as well (though it could be argued to strictly speaking be wrong to use "due" in this sense). Secondly, that X is worth mentioning, or indeed that Y is not worth mentioning, is a viewpoint. TompaDompa (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article is all plot, it has not been demonstrated that these sources meet WP:SIGCOV, and that they go beyond a plot summary. WP:ALLPLOT/WP:NOTPLOT (the latter being a policy) ask to be heard, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reliable sources for inclusion and it would be good to keep something a bit more dispassionate about this central figure in D&D cosmology than you'll get from various fanwikis. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk deities where this has an entry that is just a link to this page, but where other deities have a paragraph each. Not clear why this one gets special treatment. Claims that this has sourcing are quite debatable. Jclemens says some refs give acceptable SPS coverage of the topic. But WP:SPS sources do not contribute to the notability of the topic, and this is nearly everything (or else the sources are primary). Dragon magazine has an article about four deities, but Dragon is an official magazine for the D&D RP games and is thus not an independent source for notability. Who, outside of the game system itself, is writing articles about this deity? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy We do :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge per Sirfurboy. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. We're missing sufficient coverage in sources that are both independent and reliable. Any WP:SPS can be summarized more briefly at another notable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who parodies

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

An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Doctor Who is an iconic series, and nearly every iconic series has been parodied at some point; there is no coverage indicating that parodies of Doctor Who specifically are notable. The overall topic has no coverage: All GNews hits are from unreliable sources or trivial mentions, while Books and Scholar have nothing covering parodies in particular. There's absolutely nothing indicating the notability of this subject, and none of the spoofs individually appear to be notable either given the lack of strong sourcing for all of them. This subject completely fails notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments while Books and Scholar have nothing covering parodies in particular: Dancing with the Doctor has a multi-page chapter dealing with the subject, "Unruly Divergence: Parody and Comedy". A Pirate's History of Doctor Who: the unauthorized stories reviews one parody in-depth, The Reign of Turner, but also discusses Doctor Who spoofs more generally on p. 171 (and presumably 170). It does have an ISBN, does not look self-published to me at first glance. Is Houston Press unreliable? Daranios (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A list of parody moments is in general a much more dubious proposition than a list of parody works—the latter being particularly suitable for a WP:CSC #1 (Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia.) kind of list, assuming there should be a list in the first place. If we are going to have such a list, I would be in favour of keeping information about each parody to a minimum on the list page, relying instead on the link to the article about the parody work for the details of the parody.
I took a quick look at the sources linked above by Daranios (or more accurately, the parts Google Books decided to show me). I would note that The Reign of Turner (IMDb link) does not currently have a stand-alone Wikipedia article and based on a quick search for sources likely does not merit one. The other linked source is a bit difficult to assess as Google Books rather severely limits what I'm able to see, but it mentions (at least) Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death, Tonight's the Night (TV series)#Doctor Who Sketch, and "From Raxacoricofallapatorius with Love". The first and last of those are explicitly described as specials (a Doctor Who special and a The Sarah Jane Adventures special, respectively), which seems a bit dubious to describe as "parodies" without further qualifiers or elaboration (one might term them "self-parodies", perhaps).
I would also note that there is a Doctor Who in popular culture article (which is, it should be said, not in great shape at the moment). It is not immediately obvious to me that we should have separate articles for parodies and other types of cultural references. TompaDompa (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken a stab at reducing this to a list of parody works with stand-alone Wikipedia articles. Take a look and see what you think. At any rate, we should not be listing parody works, parody moments, parody characters, and parody in-universe media together—that's just sloppy article construction. TompaDompa (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am not sure I agree with the recent extreme "cleanup" of the page (including removal of all the sources!!!] but that might be a different issue (I can't see why different sections focusing on different types/levels of parodying would be inappropriate; quite the opposite). Anyway clearly meets WP:NLIST. Sources presented above could seem sufficient. The topic is also addressed in Playing Fans: Negotiating Fandom and Media in the Digital Age (p. 102-104, for example) Also see sources like https://templeofgeek.com/list-of-doctor-who-parodies-and-doctor-who-inspired-music/ https://metro.co.uk/2017/03/24/no-doctor-who-sketch-in-comic-relief-this-year-you-can-watch-one-of-these-instead-6508088/ One can also add a Game Rant list (that CAN be used to expand the article, that's what WP:VALNET clearly states). Among missing titles in the list is Doctor Whore (https://www.cinemablend.com/television/Doctor-Who-Porn-Parody-Series-Exists-Compare-Casts-66875.html ; https://www.allocine.fr/article/fichearticle_gen_carticle=18633654.html?%20Series)) so that (re)-expansion seems AT LEAST possible -Mushy Yank. 09:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- different sections focusing on different types/levels of parodying would be a third approach, different both from what the article was like when it was nominated (which listed different types/levels of parody alongside each other, not grouped as such) and how it is structured now. Whether it is a good idea depends on whether that's how the sources treat the subject—parody works and parody characters (and so on) are different concepts, so if sources only discuss one of them if would be inappropriate to cover them together here. TompaDompa (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there are enough secondary sources to establish notability, and everything else can be solved through normal editing. With regard to The Reign of Turner, if it is discussed in secondary source(s) but not enough to be notable, it is suitable to be included in a list in accordance with WP:ATD-M and such. I am not fundamentally opposed to treating this in a larger context, like Doctor Who in popular culture, on the basis of WP:PAGEDECIDE, but that's again a discussion that can be done outside of the deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there are arguments to Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eilistraee

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

Fails WP:GNG. Virtually all of the citations are to D&D rulebooks and blog posts. Aside from that, they appear in one listacle. This is a massive in-world lore dump masquerading as an article and I'm kind of shocked it's survived this long. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2025 (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. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources are found, otherwise merge to Drow. BOZ (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question @The Squirrel Conspiracy: Have you also looked at the Google Scholar search? It may well not amount to much, but there are a number of hits which are not "D&D rulebooks and blog posts", so they should be checked out in accordance with WP:ARTN and WP:BEFORE. Daranios (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I see absolutely nothing usable there. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios We have something from an academic German source (Blume), but it seems to be a passing mention, but maybe you could double check. Other than that, reception has a pathetic listicle entry... :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Thanks, I've seen that and added what I've found there. Not a lot, but not trivial either. (And it has become a convoluted sentence again, so I someone can phrase that better...) Daranios (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment from the above, [6] is a master's thesis that provides a brief bit of coverage. Certainly counts as a secondary source. [7] appears to be independent use of the character. That's not a lot, but one more source would get me to !vote to keep (maybe weakly depending on the source). Hobit (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One other source I do find relevant and usable in the Google Scholar search is the PhD thesis "“Sounds Like It's Canon Now”: Texts and/as Truths in Transmedia Franchise Dungeons & Dragons". Has a lot of plot summary on Eilistraee, but also commentary on different characterization in Smedman's novels and earlier rulebooks. Daranios (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That 2024 dissertation on D&D transmedia has a large focus on Eilistraee & the impact of Lisa Smedman's Lady Penitent trilogy on D&D narrative (pg232-269). I didn't go through every collection available in the Wikipedia Library but I went through some of the larger ones (JSTOR, ProQuest, Sage, Springer, Taylor & Francis, etc) and that dissertation was the only hit for "Eilistraee". Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, there's still way too much gameguide stuff here. Would this be better addressed as a pantheon article? Of course, that's complicated by different pantheons in different iterations of D&D... Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge reception to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities mention of this deity, as it is not fancruft, like 99% of this article :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Corellon Larethian might be a decent target if the decision is to merge (similar to Lolth being merged to Drow); in the Forgotten Realms fiction, Eilistraee is his daughter and she' already highlighted a bit in that article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the reception we have now would be bolstered with said PhD thesis, and the plot summary would be trimmed back to an amount balanced with the non-plot sections of Publication history and Reception (and in part Background), we would have a non-stubby article which fullfils WP:NOTPLOT and has enough based on secondary source to fullfil WP:WHYN, i.e. a notable topic. That said, I am not fundamentally opposed to a merge, though my preferred target in such a case would be the Drow article in parallel to the discussion on Lolth. The commentary on Eilistraee we have now is closely related to the drow. Maybe a bit less so in the PhD thesis. List of Dungeons & Dragons deities or Corellon Larethian are also related topics and fine as merge targets, but in my view somewhat less suited. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions