The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Space western. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Space Frontier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is not an actual topic. The one source is to the "frontier theme" in science fiction, which is a legitimate essay topic, but is not a subject for an article. Most of the other statements in this article were ones that were not sourced or original research. jps (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is this the same/similar to Space Western? A redirect could be the best solution. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Seems that Space Western is the same thing and would make sense to redirect this article to Space Western.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't seem like it's talking about space westerns (though it is confusing), but more like fictional space explorations as in Star Trek. Also, I've never heard of space westerns or sci-fi westerns referred to as "space frontier". If it must be redirected, Space Frontier Foundation is probably the place. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the fact that this is not a concept that pertains to a specific genre of science fiction. It seems to be a non-unique concept. Old Al (Talk) 15:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. That this supposed subgenre doesn't even exist in the main article for science fiction is an indication to me that it's not worthy of note. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Space western or delete. Basically redundant to space western, though one could nitpick at minor differences between them. Google search turns up no obvious signs of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• as a "theme" and not a genre or sub-genre that is recognized by anyone, Wikipedia should not be home to an WP:OR essay on the topic. it seems likely that most people typing the topic in the search bar would be seeking Space Frontier Foundation , so a redirect there would be my first choice, although "delete" or "redirect to space western" would also be acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as non-existent sub-genre of a heavily-documented and discussed genre. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or Redirect as Frontier (science fiction) [1]. " Stories of people conquering new frontiers, leaving our world to colonize a preferable one. Usually told with a "Grass is greener" aspect, only to learn that the same (if not worse) problems face them in the new colony." It is Space Western but WITHOUT the American West backdrop or background. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable concept/sub-genre/whatever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there isn't really an article here, more like a sentence. Would reconsider if there was some substantial content that explained this concept. By the way, if this article is deleted, be sure to remove mention of it in the Template:Science fiction where it has been added. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the content was removed, I think it needs to be reworded and retitled. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Perhaps the original version of the article should be reviewed for discussion for deletion or not. I'm afraid this version cannot be considered encyclopedic 69.165.246.181 (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC) [2] here's the original version with some modifications made by me. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you still insisting that the version prior to TRPoD's edits was any good? Every single one of TRPoD's removals has been agreed with by multiple editors, all of whom are fairly experienced... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.