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

Time War (Doctor Who)

AfDs for this article:

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

I've elected to renominate this after the last AfD; I had previously voted Keep, but I have just finished an extensive rewrite of Time Lord, and after digging through dozens of sources pertaining to everything related to the concept, as well as after another Time War search, I'm unconvinced the SIGCOV is here to support the article separately. Looking back on the sources brought up, many of them are trivial, or entirely plot summary-based sources. What few sources discuss the impact of the Time War are largely based around the Time Lords and the impact it had on them, or the impact the event had on the Doctor; these are inherently focused on these characters, instead of being about the War itself. Additionally, the War's real world developmental and Appearance info overlaps heavily with the Time Lords to a point where WP:NOPAGE applies, especially in conjunction with how the little bits of reception that exist are also tied into the Time Lords almost exclusively.

At present, I feel the War is adequately covered on all fronts in the Time Lord article, and anything else present in this article largely just unneeded plot summary. I'd support a redirect AtD to Time Lord since this is a valid search time, but if anyone believes there's more content that would benefit the Time Lord article pertaining to the Time War, I am unopposed to a merge should it come to that. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why nominate this at this time? Was there resistance to an attempted merge or redirect? It seems like you're not even proposing deletion. The last AfD was NC and a year ago, so I don't see that as requiring this. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens I figured it'd be wiser to open a discussion to determine a proper consensus, since I was worried the No Consensus would make it so that an attempted Wikipedia:BLAR would likely be met with opposition by at least one user. For potentially controversial redirects, it's often wiser to open an AfD instead, since it'd likely be going to that venue anyway if a BLAR is reverted. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that might actually be something we want to add to BEFORE: if you're just proposing an uncontroversial merge, it might help relieve the strain on AfD (which is still supposed to mean 'deletion' rather than 'discussion' per WP:PEREN even though I prefer the latter) to defer the discussion until someone has actually objected rather than being proactive. I have no strong opinion on this one, but being familiar with the topic, I'm certainly not going to oppose a merge like this. Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Maximum Ride characters

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

Fails WP:NLIST. No references to reliable secondary sources. The 1 reference the article has currently is a primary source to a list of books. Mika1h (talk) 12:23, 14 July 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) 12:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Questions at Mika1h: Could you please comment a bit on your search results of the Google news search? Because there are some hits, but I don't know why they may not be helpful. And did you included a Google Scholar search in your WP:BEFORE search? Because again there are some hits there. Thanks! Daranios (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like the only source that could be considered in-depth for the characters: [1]. Feel free to point out other significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Auton (film series)

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

A film series for the Doctor Who franchise. I recently did research for the Autons, and while digging, I did a little bit of research on these films, but could find absolutely nothing on them. The only mentions were brief, and mentioned the films existed, but said nothing more. I can't find any dev info, let alone SIGCOV that would provide reception for the films. The only source from the article providing any commentary is a single book, with any other source being fanzines or Doctor Who Magazine, which is a PRIMARY source officially published for the Doctor Who franchise, and with BBV being tied to the BBC in production of these films, I doubt it passes a threshold of separation from the Magazine's usual advertisement. This article also suffers from WP:COATRACK, courtesy of all three being separate, non-notable subjects covered together to cobble together an article. I'd suggest a redirect to either BBV Productions where these films are listed, or Nestene Consciousness and Autons, where these films are also listed, as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Television. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I assume the nominator's intended alternative to deletion redirect suggestions are actually BBV Productions (not the BBV disambiguation page) or Nestene Consciousness and Autons (Nestene Consciousness and Auton does not exist, but is probably little more than a typo). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcquidditch oop, thank you for the catch. I've amended my nom statement's links for clarity. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eye of Agamotto

AfDs for this article:

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

Very niche fictional object, no evidence of WP:GNG for this topic. Pure plot summary and list of appearances, no analysis/reception. Per WP:ATD-R, maybe redirect this to Agamotto? PS. AfD 10 years ago was dominated by "arguments" like "important in-universe" (doubtful anyway), "no good merge candidate" (really?? It's in the title...) and "covered in dependent picture books calling themselves encyclopedias"). Not much help there... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 9 July 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} 08:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor Strange. The item is very associated with him in universe and tends to be adapted with him, and what little mentions it discusses it as part of Strange. The redirect is valid and a likely search term so I'd definitely favor it over a deletion. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the mystical artifacts section of Features of the Marvel Universe in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Strange per Pokelego99 - As said, pretty much all coverage of the Eye in sources is in relation to Dr. Strange, so there is nothing to indicate it is independently notable, and per WP:NOPAGE would be best covered under the same article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Strange per all, where it's already covered. This doesn't really pass WP:GNG outside of its relationship with the character. I am open to other redirect targets and a slight merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serpent Crown

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

Very niche fictional object, no evidence of WP:GNG for this topic. Pure plot summary and list of appearances, no analysis/reception. Per WP:ATD-R, maybe redirect this to Namor, where this item is mentioned few times in the usual gargantuan plot summary there? Sigh _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 9 July 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} 08:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Namor. Doesn't seem to have any serious coverage about it specifically, definitely not deserving of an individual page. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current article is just pure plot summary with no sources that would indicate it passes the WP:GNG, and searches are not turning up any additional significant coverage in reliable sources. I suppose I would not be opposed to redirecting to Namor, as it is already mentioned throughout that article, if that helps form a consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Namor. Most of the big details seem to be there, and there's not much that needs to be merged. Valid redirect target as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the mystical artifacts section of Features of the Marvel Universe in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Namor per all. It's already covered there and doesn't have separate WP:NOTABILITY. A light merge would be fine, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sourced added to the article today. BOZ (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Those added sources are either speculations (which ultimately proved to be untrue) from unreliable sources like WP:VALNET sites, or simple plot recaps where the crown appears to fill out a "list of appearances". None of them offer any actual reliably sourced, non-plot summary commentary or analysis that would be sufficient for establishing notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin's rings

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

Niche fictional object, little evidence of WP:GNG for this topic (there is 2021 ScreenRant: [2] and a weaker 2022 from SR as well: [3]). That said, they are mostly plot summaries anyway (and the odds are good they mostly rewrote Wikipedia and Fandom...); what we have is pure plot summary and list of appearances, no analysis/reception. Slight merge and redirect to Mandarin (character) would suffice instead of hard deletion, per WP:ATD-R. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 9 July 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} 08:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mandarin (character), since they are very heavily associated with him and lack individual notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mandarin (character) per above. I am not seeing anything to indicate that they are independently notable to the Mandarin himself, and are already described in extreme detail at the target page. Rorshacma (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all. Doesn't pass WP:GNG on its own and sources appear to cover this in the context of the character. Support WP:ATD instead of outright deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norn Stones

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

Niche fictional object, no evidence of WP:GNG for this topic. Pure plot summary and list of appearances, no analysis/reception. PS. Item used by several characters, so there's no obvious redirect/merge, although maybe to Loki (Marvel Comics)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 9 July 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} 08:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Loki (Marvel Comics). Most appearances in secondary sources I've seen are brief plot summary, but "THE CHARACTERIZATION OF BYRONIC HERO IN THE MAIN CHARACTER OF THE NOVEL LOKI: WHERE MISCHIEF LIES BY MACKENZI LEE: A MICHAEL RIFFATERRES SEMIOTIC ANALYISIS" has some serious analysis, although specifically within Loki: Where Mischief Lies. So on the one hand no stand-alone notability, and the Marvel Comics-based novel in question is not included in Loki (Marvel Comics). On the other hand, there the Norn Stones already appear, and that's the one character where analysis is available for future inclusion, so that should be the preferred target. Daranios (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armies of Death

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

Could not find any sigcov. Redirect to Fighting Fantasy (the series it is in)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Games. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am neither for nor against deletion because I know nothing about this subject, but I would not suggest a redirect to Fighting Fantasy because this subject is not mentioned in that article at all. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it should be. So add mention and then redirect. Very odd there is not a list of the books in that article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can actually do that yourself. If that was your only issue, there was no need to bring the article to AfD. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the link is in that article or not, there is still obviously a need to bring it to AfD because the book is not notable.

I'll do it sometime later if someone doesn't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the books are on the list article, List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks, which is stuck in the see also for some reason. So redirect there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it now meets the requirements following the reviews added by User:Guinness323. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those reviews are reliable. The RSN discussion on Fantasy Book Review came to the conclusion it was unusuable for notability, the other is a blog and the other is one sentence of coverage in a listicle. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. As far as I can see, all the FF series have articles. It would make no sense for this to be the sole one that didn't. This needs wider discussion than just a single book. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp For the record, less than half do... so no. List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I was looking at the wrong list. I'm neutral then. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks. None of the newly added sources are reliable, and my search of ProQuest/EBSCOhost/archive.org/Gbooks does not turn up anything providing significant coverage. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks - The added sources are either not from reliable sources or are a trivial mention in a listicle. I have also not found any reviews or coverage in reliable sources in my own searches, which makes this a failure of the WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Redirect to the main list of Fighting Fantasy titles, where is is already listed, is the only real WP:ATD here. Rorshacma (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dalekmania

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

A documentary film on Dalek films from the 1960s, named after the Dalekmania of the 1960s (Covered in the Dalek article). Having extensively researched the actual Dalekmania after which this is named, I could not find a single source actually discussing this documentary; any sources discussing Dalekmania discuss the actual Dalekmania, not this production. The actual content of the article is just a very opinionated summary of the actual documentary's contents, and the only sources verify what the actual Dalekmania was. No indication of notability at all, and a clear GNG failure; I'd suggest redirecting to the Dalekmania section of the Dalek article as an AtD, given the actual Dalekmania is substantially more notable even if only discussed as part of a larger article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well there is a reliable source review of the documentary here from DVD Verdict, and this off-line reference: Brown, Geoff (5 August 1995). "New On Video". The Times. was added to the talk page, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306 two questions:
1. What is the reliability of DVD Verdict? I'm unfamiliar with the source and I can't seem to find any info on author credentials or reliability either on the site or at any of the major WikiProjects.
2. Do you have access to "New on Video"? Without knowing what's inside of it, I'm not sure how useful it can be since we have no clue what kind of coverage the source contains.
Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk)

(Contribs) 16:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going by this discussion at the Reliable Sources Notieboard here sections 8 and 21, I would say it is reliable. Note that it is now defunct so the site may no longer have the editorial information it once had. Also I read in another discussion that it has been accepted in GA reviews. New on Video is a section in The Times newspaper (UK) which I don't have access to, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - instead of nominating this longstanding (19 years) article for deletion, how about looking at ways to improve it? Jack1956 (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been improved since nomination including the addition of a reception section that includes the DVD Verdict review, and Dr Who magazine review and there is also the Times piece detailed on the talkpage so there is a case for a WP:GNG pass in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306 will note that, on top of not being able to verify the contents of The Times' coverage, Doctor Who Magazine is a Wikipedia:PRIMARY source, being an officially published magazine for the series. It doesn't provide notability as a source. While I do agree DVD Verdict is a strong source, I do feel as of now we only have one notability-providing source, which is a GNG failure. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about Dr WHO Magazine as the documentary is not by the BBC and is not about the TV series but about 2 films made by film companies that are unconnected to the BBC, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's a stretch to call DWM a primary source. Neither the magazine nor its publisher had any close connection to Dalekmania. Nor did the BBC, which the magazine is under licence from. Dalekmania was an independently-made film. The review is an example of significant coverage and I think it's usable here. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 00:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306 @SuperMarioMan I believe your arguments are valid and I will agree to the consensus that DWM is usable for this, given they have an editorial team and are overall pretty high quality, even if they are mostly for Who-promo. I did remove a source added from the New Zealand Doctor Who Fan Club, since while it doesn't have PRIMARY concerns, the Fan Club is, well, a fan club. It's run entirely by fans. I've only ever used them for Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF interviews in the past, since anything else from them is just unreliable under guidelines. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, It almost sounds as if this nomination is withdrawn but I need to actually see those words.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations

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

Clear WP:NLIST failure - being a team or organization in a Marvel comic is so incredibly common that this is not a unique aspect, nor does the article demonstrate sources that discuss Marvel teams and organizations as a whole. Overall, this is a list more fitting for the Marvel Database wiki and should not be used as a free "dumping ground" for otherwise non-notable teams. Even putting them together, they remain non-notable and only relevant to comic-book superfans. The MCU list article also seems to have the same problem, but due to WP:TRAINWRECK concerns, I am nominating this first. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:39, 3 July 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. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me there seem to be a lot of problems with the nomination rationale with regard to WP:SKCRIT no 3. Being common is to my knowledge not a reason for deletion. We do have things like Lists of companies or Lists of animals, which are arguably much more common than the organizations here. We do have a lot of blue links, so this most likely is a list useful for navigation in accordance with WP:LISTPURP-NAV and WP:CLN. Such lists may even be kept without fulfilling WP:LISTN, depending on consensus. "dumping ground" and "more fitting for the Marvel Database wiki" might be the case if the goal were to collect all teams and organizations. On the other hand, it is totally policy-based to included entities which are not notable enough for a stand-alone article but still do have some coverage or encyclopedic purpose based on editors' disgression and consensus, as specified in WP:ATD-M. "nor does the article demonstrate sources that discuss Marvel teams and organizations as a whole" I believe is correct, but that's again no grounds for deletion according to WP:ARTN, i.e. current article content is not the decisive factor. So before getting into the abovementioned consideration based on the navigation purpose, I would like to know the result of the ~~required~~ WP:BEFORE search on secondary sources not yet in the article. And from the experience that comics have been increasingly analyzed in academia I'd ask to include the Google Scholar search in this consideration. Daranios (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That falls under WP:SOURCESEARCH, or maybe just WP:ADHOMINEM, as you are implying the sources exist and a WP:BEFORE was not performed, without actually stating where they are. You could just actually find the sources before casting aspersions. I certainly don't think all or even most of these teams are notable even as part of a list, and they are largely sourced to primary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: I apologize, I did not mean to be WP:ADHOMINEM! I don't know yet if there are sources. But as far as I can see you have only commented on sources in the article. As in any deletion discussion involving notability concerns it would really be helpful to get some elaboration on the results of the WP:BEFORE search of the nominator, as a starting point for their own searches of any participant in the discussion. Lack of such elaboration in my view in turn gets into WP:JUSTNOTABLE territory. Daranios (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per one of the comments made by @Daranios:. Plus, a lot of redirects go to this page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PERX and WP:POPULARPAGE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the importance of redirects pointing here, rather than being a WP:POPULARPAGE argument (which is based on view statistics, not directly involved with redirects), is that a) there was consensus at several other discussions that a redirect here is the way to go, which should count for something with regard to the existence of this list and b) that this list does fulfill one of the basic functions of lists at Wikipedia as outlined in WP:CSC, 2., (as well as WP:ATD-M) and thus is very much in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. Daranios (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep according to WP:SKCRIT no 3.: As discussed above I don't see a policy-based rationale for deletion in the nomination, except for the pure statement "Clear WP:NLIST failure". As this is not at all obvious to me, I believe this falls under WP:JUSTNOTABLE. On the other hand this list fulfills a navigational purpose for encyclopedic content on this topic elsewhere on Wikipedia, as well as being a place for encyclopedic content on the topic which does not lend itself to stand-alone articles, as outlined in WP:ATD-M. It is also a well-warranted WP:SPLIT from Marvel Universe, within which teams and organizations play a vital role, as was also acknowledged in the nomination. Daranios (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is "not obvious to you", it does not make it not a policy-based reason, just a policy-based reason you personally think is wrong. Well, not unless you were Galactus and controlled reality. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So why not just fix the WP:JUSTNOTABLE problem in the nomination as explained in that essay on the deletion policy, as I've requested earlier? Simply claiming something does not make it a reality either (except for Galactus who just makes it so of course...). Daranios (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to answer more directly, yes, the nomination contains a reference to a policy. But it does not contain a rationale why this should apply here which is intelligible to me. And if it is not clear to me, then most likely "Clear failure", i.e. not needing further explanation, is not the case. Daranios (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Corps

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

Niche fictional organization from Marvel universe. Article fails WP:GNG and is just a plot summary and list of appearances; no reception or analysis found, nothing useful in my BEFORE. WP:ATD-R suggests we can pipe this to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations, maybe merge the lead there? (It's unreferenced, unfortunately) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Organizations. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Marvel teams list clearly fails WP:NLIST, so there is nowhere rational to merge or redirect. The article itself also fails notability. Marvel Wiki is that-a-way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The basics should be easily verifiable with (probably among many others) Smart Pop Explains Marvel Movies and TV Shows, p. 129-130, and Marvelous Mythology, p. 210. There is a small bit of commentary in the context of depiction of institutions in the MCU in "Time to Work for a Living: The Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Organized Superhero. ". Daranios (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am still feeling like WP:INDISCRIMINATE is failed by the article, so it doesn't change my opinion. There's also no single place that would make sense to redirect the term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's also no single place that would make sense to redirect the term may be the case if List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations were deleted, but only if no alternative fitting target can be found. So while we can continue the discussion here, it would be great if it were to remain open until that's decided at that deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to that, as if the list was decided to be notable, then it would absolutely be a viable place for redirection. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Collecting more sources: Brief commentary in The Twenty-First-Century Western, p. 261 (plus some plot summary p. 262, 264). "Beyond the Law: What is so “Super” About Superheroes and Supervillains?": The Nova Corps representing the state, including negative aspects; importance in the MCU. Daranios (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can only see a snippet of Super-héros ! - La puissance des masques, but it provides confirmation of the parallel to Green Lantern Corps by a non-Valnet source. And a really weird fact, Guardians of the Galaxy is listed as "Highest death toll in a superhero movie" because of the deaths of the entired Nova Corps in the Guiness Book of World Records. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nova (Richard Rider), who seems to be the primary Nova character. Given the bulk of Nova's notability is due to this character, and the coverage for the Corps is non-existent, it's likely better to redirect here, where the Corps are very relevant as part of the Nova character's backstory. Would also be safer on the chance the teams and organizations list is redirected or deleted via the ongoing Afd. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge parts as appropriate to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations (deletion discussion is pending), Nova (Richard Rider), and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe groups. Not sure about the best redirect target. Commentary has been found! It is so far quite limited, but coverage is not non-existent. Did not yet have time to search further, so casting my intermediate !vote. Interestingly, the commentary so far focusses on the MCU incarnation. Daranios (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing a slew of other deletion nominationts that was as much time as I wanted to spend in searching for sources. As only short secondary sources turned up which can likely fit into another (list other otherwise) article, a merge is fine with me. Daranios (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per Pokelego999. Limited coverage that doesn't pass WP:GNG, but there is a clear WP:ATD for the character this is associated with. Let's strive for compromise and consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations (deletion discussion is pending), Nova (Richard Rider) 200.46.55.53 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because a number of editors are recommending a Merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations and this article has been brought to AFD. Was there a second possible merge target article if this one gets deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: If it should come to that, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe groups has been suggested as an alternative target once, Nova (Richard Rider) twice. Daranios (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Extra

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

Another web-series, similar to the recently AfD'd Doctor Who: Access all Areas. A search for sources yields only WP:ROUTINE coverage of the series' announcement or PRIMARY coverage by the BBC's Doctor Who sites. All coverage in the article currently are either unreliable fansites, or similar, trivial, ROUTINE coverage. No indication of importance or impact beyond existing, and doesn't meet WP:GNG or any WP:SIGCOV bar. I'd suggest a redirect or merge to either Doctor Who series 8 or Doctor Who series 9, which this series focused on, as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Internet, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Doctor Who series 8 per nom ^{themoon@talk:~$} 09:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: The Fan Show

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

Like the recently AfD's Doctor Who: Access All Areas, this is another similar program covering behind the scenes info for Doctor Who series 10. A search yields no coverage for this show, only being WP:ROUTINE recaps of production info revealed on the program and TRIVIALMENTIONs in articles focused on Christel Dee, where they briefly mention she was the past host. There are no reviews or any noteworthy reception, nor an indication of any impact I can find. I'd suggest a redirect or merge to Series 10, given it's the most closely associated subject. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Internet, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Doctor Who series 10. No significant coverage. Two of the references are permanently dead links while two other links are duplicates. The last link is just a YouTube website which doesn't grant any notability for this standalone article. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for the merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge per GalaxyBeing ^{themoon@talk:~$} 09:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions

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