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

Suraapanam

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Only has 1 reliable review and 1 routine press release about the teaser release. Other review deemed unreliable by the Indian cinema taskforce [1] [2]. A WP:BEFORE found nothing of use: [3] [4]. DareshMohan (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man's armor (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

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

This article was created as a split from Iron Man's armor in other media that was later merged back to Iron Man's armor following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Man's armor in other media. There's no reason for the Marvel Cinematic Universe to be separated from Iron Man's armor anymore. Both articles are short enough that after merge they'd be within WP:PROSESIZE, and the Iron Man's armor contained a lot of unreferenced plotcruft that I recently removed (effectively the 'in other media' stuff). While there are sources that talk about how Iron Man looked in various movies, there's no reason to split this - it's also doing a disservice to the readers, most of whom will end up at the main IMA article and not see the good content in the article here; the Iron Man's armor article now has a tiny, one sentence section on IMA in other media, stating that "Iron Man's armors feature prominently in several films set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe." It should be replaced with the content of this article. I fail to see how the movie-universe armor has separate stand-alone notability versus its basic concept, and why it couldn't be merged. There was a discussion of this previously at Talk:Iron_Man's_armor#Merge_from_Iron_Man's_armor_(Marvel_Cinematic_Universe), but most comments were pretty much "just votes" with no meaningful rationale, IMHO. Anyway, as far reasons for deletions, I want to reiterate that this article is a bad WP:CFORK of dubious stand-alone WP:GNG that failed both in the past and now the logic of WP:SIZESPLIT. The fate of Iron Man's armor in other media was decided at AFD, the fate of the article that was split out of it should follow suit, given the failure of merge discussion to produce meaningful rationales (WP:NOVOTE). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Merge as per nomination in toto. This doesn't seem to be well served by a bifurcated page. Iron Man's armor is Iron Man's armor whether it's in the MCU or on Mr. Rodger's Neighborhood. A single page increases the likelihood that a user will find what they are looking for. That being said, I am not entirely convinced that the wardrobe of any character justifies it's own Encyclopedia entry, but that's another discussion for another page for another day. Foxtrot620 (talk) 01:05, 27 June 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 Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: There was just a months-long discussion opposing a merge, and any proposed deletion would result in content from this article being merged into the comics article. The MCU version of the Iron Man armors have enough significant discussion about how they were made for the films that are distinct from the comics article. If this article were to be merged anywhere, I would suggest Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) as a more appropriate avenue, but AfD is NOT the place to try and force a merger just because it was recently rejected with consensus against a merge. I'm sure this article can be expanded to include commentary about the armor designs from the films, if that is a concern. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is as legitimate as any other "(Marvel Cinematic Universe)" topic because the expansive world of MCU films and television series (and even tie-in comic books) presents a distinct vision from the original comic book material, and has its own distinct coverage. With respect to Iron Man's armor in the films, for example, there are details about both the practical costuming and the CGI rendering that are irrelevant to purely comic book versions. BD2412 T 01:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I will ping participants of the discussions merged here: @RemoveRedSky, InfiniteNexus, Maxwell Smart123321, Trailblazer101, The Squirrel Conspiracy, Andrew Davidson, Hako9, Johnpacklambert, Favre1fan93, Dream Focus, Darkknight2149, TTN, BOZ, and Rorshacma:. I was going to do it from the nomb but got distracted. Sorry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no memory of any previous discussions I've been involved in regarding this subject, but if I had to guess, I found some version of the article via a bot-maintained list of articles by highest count of non-free files, and tried to get that number down. I did a lot of that with superhero articles. In terms of the article as it stands now, even from a quick glance it's in remarkably good shape compared to a lot of articles I've seen in the area. Should that have any bearing on this discussion? Probably not. Just pointing out that I've seen my fair share of impenetrable lore dumps and this article has such things as formatting and citations, which those were thin on. @Piotrus: I'm not upset at all that you pinged me, but feel free to skip doing so in future DRs. It's been many years since I was involved in writing Wikipedia articles and I doubt I'll have much to offer in DRs going forward. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy You were the nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Man's armor in other media :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. This is largely plot summary and nothing more, and I'm not seeing any SIGCOV, either from the keep votes or in the article, regarding this subject. I see no reason for a separation here, and the notability of the armor in the MCU is Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED from the notability of the armor elsewhere. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Trailblazer. The film version is independently notable because of all the real-world production information available (design, practical suits, VFX, etc.) and cramming all of this into the bottom of the comics article would be silly. If the comics article is barely holding itself together then why not merge it to Iron Man? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as best summarised by Trailblazer and adamstom97. Maxwell Smart ¹²³³²¹ 13:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enclave (comics)

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

There are no reliable sources that meaningfully discuss this fictional organisation. In its current state, this article exclusively relies on primary sources, with the exception of an article that was published by a Valnet-owned publisher. Furthermore, it might not be a valid search term, as a massive number of false positives were found while trying to search for usable sources. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:27, 26 June 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 Comics and animation. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources are found, otherwise merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations per WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Munchkin Country

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

Similar to previous country articles that were AfD'd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadling Country and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winkie Country. Very doubtful that The Maps of Oz ref is WP:SIGCOV. Finding Oz book talks mostly about the Munchkins themselves. The book is available for borrowing at Archive.org: [5]. Note that Munchkin is a separate article to this country article. Suggesting a redirection to Land of Oz#Munchkin Country. Mika1h (talk) 23:53, 24 June 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 Literature. Mika1h (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Land of Oz#Munchkin Country in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Land of Oz#Munchkin Country - The Munchkins themselves are undoubtably notable, but as mentioned in the nomination, they already have a full article dedicated to them. Searches are not producing any significant coverage on the actual land itself that would really justify having a separate article wholly dedicated to Munchkin Country in addition to the existing articles on the Munchkins and the Land of Oz as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to double-check that there is really not enough there in secondary sources. @Mika1h: Could you perhaps elaborate more on the results of the WP:BEFORE search in this regard? Thanks!

The Routledge Companion to Imaginary Worlds, p. 362 has a comparison to regional US as non-plot commentary. "Utopian Tension in L. Frank Baum's Oz" notes that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz in American Popular Culture has commentary on "the class divisions in Munchkin Country (e.g. the rich Munchkin Boq) and the general economic disparity in Oz", but I have no access to this book to check how extended that is. Does anyone else? Daranios (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article by Screenrant: [6], which according to WP:VALNET shouldn't be used to establish notability. There's also this book that talks about the map of Munchkin Country: [7]. --Mika1h (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who Put the Rainbow in the Wizard of Oz? discusses the implementation of Munchkinland into music. That works equally well in The Wizard of Oz or here (but no problem with duplication in accordance with WP:NOTPAPER). Fairy Tales Reimagined, p. 216, has rather serious observations on what Munchkinland means with regard to real-world history. That would work within Wicked (Maguire novel), but probably better here. Daranios (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge per Rorshacma. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to really cover this separate from Oz more generally. Building a strong Land of Oz article would be more constructive, and it's good for editors to look for common ground and WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Land of Oz or keep. With the found secondary sources I believe a short but non-stubby article could be written which also fulfills WP:ALLPLOT, i.e. this seems to be a noteable topic. I expect that there are more sources out there, as I have found some in only a limited search, but don't want to invest the time to do more here now. So I have not problem with a merge until such information gets to detailed for an Land of Oz article on the basis of WP:PAGEDECIDE and Shooterwalker's suggestion to improve that article first. Daranios (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guilt Hulk

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

While there are sources that discuss this particular Hulk alter, none of them are the types of sources that can be used to prove notability. Aside from a single mention in a scholarly book, all but two of the potential sources were operated by Valnet. With regards to the article's current sources, all of them were published by Marvel. In any case, this character could easily be discussed within the Hulk's main article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:36, 24 June 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 Comics and animation. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the "other identities" section of Hulk in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hulk#Other identities - Very minor version of Hulk with only a handful of actual appearances. There is nowhere close to enough coverage in reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG, but there is no reason not to include a couple sentence description to the appropriate section of the main Hulk article where the non-notable Hulk versions are discussed. Rorshacma (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per all, as WP:ATD. There is already an article about this character, and sources don't cover it as a separate topic deserving of a scond article. Deletion would be valid, but a redirect is at least appropriate as a search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Access All Areas

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

Has been tagged for months for notability concerns, without improvement. Contested redirect, again without improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Only unreliable sources and some mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the other Doctor Who aftershows have their own articles. So, why not this one? Spectritus (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because this one has no coverage in reliable sources and thus fails notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge lede into Doctor Who series 11#Promotion. It's without a secondary source but I think it's unlikely to be challenged. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Doctor Who series 11 since there is little notability to make it a standalone article. Galaxybeing (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Galaxybeing Could you explain how it isn't as notable as the other Doctor Who aftershows please? Spectritus (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Aaron Liu above, there's no sources actually discussing this subject's notability (I.e, no reviews, analysis, or indications of importance in the grander scheme of the show) Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spectritus The article lacks secondary sources, with no significant coverage in reviews or analysis that could make it notable. Galaxybeing (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just because it was broadcast on YouTube instead of TV? Spectritus (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's just no coverage, like, objectively. Plenty of YouTube series are notable, but this one isn't because it doesn't have the coverage these other series do. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Doctor Who series 11 per others. Little in the way of notability, but there is a good place for this info to be put. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rassilon

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

A search through News, Books, and Scholar yields very little on this guy. While there are a few brief hits and mentions of Rassilon's plot roles, Rassilon himself has very little in the way of actual WP:SIGCOV analyzing or discussing him in particular. Any relevant mentions of him are better discussed at Time Lord due to the character's wider in-universe importance in regard to that species. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:31, 17 June 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 Television. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject to expansion with sources linked below or merge into Time Lord with expanded sections (see below): I am surprised Rassilon only has three appearances in the entire 62 year run of Doctor Who. Especially considering the importance of his character. This article does actually have a fair bit of information on him, ~~so currently I really don't know what to vote. I will edit this once I read the opinions of others.~~ 11WB (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having considered the possibilities of topics such as religious perspectives and the other sources that have been mentioned (which appear to be WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS). I think keeping this article or merging into the larger Time Lord article, with potential for expanded sections on the perspectives mentioned below in both cases, is most appropriate at this time. 11WB (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For collecting some sources, there is limited commentary beyond pure plot summary in these web articles: [8], [9] (closely related to the former), [10], [11], [12], as well as "Doctor Who and Immortality: Influence of Christian and Buddhist Ethics", available at WikiLibrary. A little more substantial, Women in Doctor Who: Damsels, Feminists and Monsters, p. 208-209 interprets Rassilon as "the force of supreme patriarchal power". Very brief characterization here. A Companion to Literature, Film, and Adaptation, p. 246, while not long, is interesting in its characterization and comparison to Shakespeare figure. Daranios (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Villain's Journey, p. 205, ends up talking mostly about the doctor, but the section is dedicated to and discusses what we can learn from Rassilon embodying a tyrant. TARDISbound compares Rassilon and Omega from the scriptwriters' perspective and their relative importance in the franchise (and the same text also appears in Adventures Across Space and Time, p. 31. Daranios (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there are some nice finds here, but the bulk of these are about a sentence or two within a larger article, or are information not pertaining to providing notability. I feel most of these are Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTIONS. I'd be a bit more hesitant if there were some big sources in the mix, but there's very little in the way of proper Wikipedia:SIGCOV on the subject, even in a borderline case like I've seen for a few other Who articles. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and Doctor Who, p. 9, 185-186, has similar commentary to "Doctor Who and Immortality: Influence of Christian and Buddhist Ethics", although viewed more through a Buddhist lens. Daranios (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting, however I feel this sort of thing is more appropriate for a specific DW wiki (like TARDIS fandom), rather than a Wikipedia article.

My current thinking is a merge to Time Lord, however I'm still mostly unsure. 11WB (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, a section on religion in Time Lord might be appropriate so long as the aforementioned source above and other credible sources are used. 11WB (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@11wallisb: My understanding is that wikis like TARDIS fandom concentrate on presenting the in-universe lore (plot summary), while an interpretation of a character from a real-world Buddhist philosophical point of view is the type of analysis which fits in Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Said book does not document Time Lord religion, but rather which real-world religious concepts have entered the scripts of the series. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios That would likely be the case usually, definitely for main characters like The Doctor himself. For Rassilon though, which as this AfD suggests, a full article that includes viewpoints from Buddhism or other religions I fear may be unnecessary.

The point you make however did initially cross my mind after I replied and that's why I added an extra part on adding a religious sub section to the larger Time Lord article. 11WB (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Show in the Galaxy, p. 162-163, examines Rassilon's opinion on life. Which might acutally be more of a borderline case than the above. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the listed secondary sources contain enough commentary to write a non-stubby article which also fullfils WP:ALLPLOT, which means this is notable in accordance with WP:WHYN after all. As discussed above none of these commentaries is very long, but short does not automatically mean trivial. Rather, it is a question if they have something meaningful to say on the topic which fits to an encyclopedic article, and I believe they do. The fact that this is not a main character should not hinder us to include certain types of commentary. I think a merge to Time Lord, in the absence of a better target, is perferable to deletion with regard to WP:ATD-M. But the majority of found commentary does not readily fit to Time Lord but is directed to Rassilion directly. So I believe keeping this a stand-alone article is the better solution. Daranios (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are valid points you make. If the sources do contribute substantive commentary on solely Rassilon, then an article using those sources I believe would be appropriate. I think the current AfD has been started due to this very thing being missing from the article. 11WB (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated my vote to reflect these thoughts, whilst keeping WP:ATD-M open as an alternative to deletion. 11WB (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more participation and clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions

Exiles to Glory (via WP:PROD on 11 April 2025)