Points of interest related to Science fiction on Wikipedia: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – To-do

Points of interest related to Star Trek on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Stubs – Assessment

Points of interest related to Star Wars on Wikipedia: Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

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. 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.
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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Science fiction or fantasy.

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

Related deletion sorting

• Fictional elements
• Television
• Film
• Anime and manga
• Comics and animation
• Literature
• Video games

Legacy of Wolves

Legacy of Wolves (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 article fails to list the notability of its subject, and does not display media coverage. The article was originally a redirect to List of Eberron modules and sourcebooks, which may say something about the book itself's notability. Samoht27 (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Samoht27 (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to, I guess, List of Eberron novels#The Inquisitives as WP:AtD. There is only one review, so this seems to fail WP:NBOOK. Still, what has already been collected should not simply be lost in deletion. If anyone knows of any more secondary sources, please let me know. Daranios (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaspa's Journey: The Great Migration

Jaspa's Journey: The Great Migration (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)

the article seems to be promotional in nature, with it's only two references being from the publisher of the book, and the other being a website about the book. the articles creator has only only one edit, with it being the creation of this article. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have been unable to find any kind of coverage or reviews on either this book or the series it is a part of, meaning it would appear to fail WP:NBOOK. Even the section for reviews on the official site for the series only lists user reviews from places like Amazon and Goodreads, making me doubt that it got any coverage in reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NBOOK and frankly this article reads very promotional, especially that section about the educational value of the book Claire 26 (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stars and planetary systems in fiction

Stars and planetary systems in fiction (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 is an extreme (almost 400kb) case of fancrufty "list of appearances of foo topic in every imaginable work" (books, comics, games...). The topic may be notable (recent talk discussion suggests User:TompaDompa, who has an established record of getting similar topics to Good Article and beyond, tried to rewrite this but was thwarted - reverted - at some point and possibly gave up), Our execution is abysmally bad and begs for WP:TNT - after tiny prose lead, this is just a WP:IPC-violating list of random examples. I.e. this is another de facto list that fails WP:LISTN, a simple WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of all instances a star or planet appeared in a work of fiction (WP:NOTTVTROPES). If we were to approach it as an article, beyond its lead, it is a major fail of WP:V and WP:OR). No prejudice to this being turned into a prose-based stub or start-class if anyone (TompaDompa?) wants to work on this, otherwise we may have to redirect it or just delete it, I am afraid. Note that this list is still growing with unrerenced ORish content (see diff from late March). Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (EDIT:ADDED: or replace with TompaDompa's version linked below), this is a well-organized and full article. You may not like lists like this,ad but that is no reason to delete. Some of the listings may be O.R., but, like many pages like this, the discussed information may be found at the linked articles. It provides a great deeal of encyclopedic knowledge, is easy to read, and gives readers an adequate exploration of the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Randy Kryn: We are not TV Tropes. TV Tropes content is not useless, and I like TV Tropes, but this list belongs on TV Tropes. There is precedent that these lists are unacceptable on Wikipedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, there is no reason that the "In popular culture" content can't be on the star pages, except if it is unacceptable content. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  TV tropes is an essay, it can be summarized as "I don't like it". I've seen this TV tropes argument come up a lot in these list discussions. Some of us like the 'In popular culture' lists and find them informative and encyclopedic, some don't. This one works and should be kept to entries which have linked articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Essays are easy to dismiss. How about policies like WP:OR? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Randy Kryn: NOTINDISCRIMINATE is policy, and it says we should not be indiscriminately listing everything in a broad topic, like works of fiction that take place near stars that aren't the Sun. Making such a list would also arguably violate our policy on original research, as we are grouping articles together in a way that is not based on what the sources say, and there is no real navigational purpose. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Keeping the current version of the article is a complete non-starter. It contains blatant WP:OR, improper use of primary sources, misrepresentations of sources, and outright WP:PLAGIARISM all in the very first section. That being said, it could be fixed. Here's what a starting point for that might look like: Special:PermaLink/1218679535.
  It's not like we cannot have high-quality articles on topics like this—Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction, and Sun in fiction are all WP:Featured articles—but the bulk of the nearly 400 kB here consists of a TV Tropes-style list with absolutely atrocious sourcing. The article has become a dumping ground for garbage "In popular culture" content to keep it out of the articles on the stars themselves. I would certainly be in favour of keeping the article provided that it is cleaned up properly (which in this case would mean rewriting it pretty much from scratch). As the nomination alludes to, I did just that back in 2021, which caused something of a ruckus and was reverted—the PermaLink above is a minimally tweaked version of what I came up with back then. I have since located additional sources that would be useful for writing a proper article on the topic, but have held off on doing so lest it be perceived as trying to force my preferred version through and causing another stir. TompaDompa (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be happy to withdraw this if the version is replaced by https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1218679535 and not reverted back as I gather happened before. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rewrite The current list is definitely not something we can keep. However, TompaDompa's version of the article does seem like an acceptable article. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as it currently is. The current article is rife with a multitude of pretty major issues as described already - poor sourcing, WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and content that blatantly goes against WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. If the current content was replaced by the draft shared by TompaDompa above, then I would be happy to keep that version, but this current list should absolutely not be retained as it is. Rorshacma (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As the previous list has been replaced by a sourced prose article, I am striking my previous recommendation to Delete. As shown by the discussions below, there is still some discussion to be had regarding the final organization of the information here, such as should it be merged anywhere or split into more than one topic, but that can be discussed after the AFD closes if needed. As far as the current AFD is concerned, I do not believe there is any cause for a deletion at this point. Rorshacma (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SALAT. Far too broad to be useful. A sizable chunk of science fiction involves other planets and star systems. (Also, no Ringworld?) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per HEY. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, then why not just go with the version by TompaDompa mentioned and linked above? If the nominator said they'd withdraw the nom if that version is used, and !voters agree, I'm not understanding the problem, which seems to have that easy solution. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As TompaDompa said, they attempted to rewrite the article to the version they proposed back in 2021, and after lengthy pushback on the Talk page, it was reverted back to the current version of the article. As they said that they were hesitant on changing it back to their version to avoid looking like they were independently ignoring that previous discussion, I made the statement that I would remove my recommendation to Delete if their version were used instead in order to hopefully show a consensus for them to go ahead with that rewrite. I'd imagine the other commenters and nom have similar thinking. Rorshacma (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn Maybe ping those editors and ask? Not everybody follows discussions after commenting. I concur that deleting is strictly inferior to replacing this with something else. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In light of the above discussion, I have restored the version I linked above and will keep working on it in the coming days. Consider this a keep conditional on retaining this version. TompaDompa (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I give editors some credit for trying to clean this up, particularly as a magnet for unverified or even false WP:OR. But this topic is far too broad to be useful, and even the "X and Y" seems to be WP:OR and [[WP:IINFO], combining a mishmash of space, planets, and stars. If I can squint hard enough, I could maybe imagine a space in fiction article, which feels less like WP:OR, but still feels extremely broad. If we got rid of the blow-by-blow list, we could perhaps find a place to merge this. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shooterwalker It is rare for us to disagree, but I think the rewrite is not OR. Sources cited included tertiary encyclopedia of sf with entries on "Stars" and "planets". The topic seems notable and the rewritten version is hardly ORish - TompaDompa has extensive experience removing OR from articles, not adding it :P If I had any concern it would be whether this shouldn't be renamed to stars, planetary systems and planets in fiction, and whether List of planets in science fiction should not just redirect here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's one way of doing it. Another way would be splitting the topic into Stars in fiction and Exoplanets in fiction (or Extrasolar planets in fiction). The topic here is pretty much Extrasolar systems in fiction, which is another possible title that could be considered. TompaDompa (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @TompaDompa Star systems in fiction would probably be simpler (also, star system is an article, but extrasolar system just a redirect to Planetary system...). A brief note on our solar system (a paragraph linking to other relevant articles, many of you that you already worked on and confirmed as notable) could head the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Planetary systems in fiction would be more appropriate, as it is more about planetary systems (planets orbiting stars) than star systems (stars orbiting each other). The (inherited) scope here is a tad sketchy, combining stars and exoplanets, but on the other hand sources do not always distinguish carefully between stars and their planets (a source describing "a voyage to Alpha Centauri" may be to the star or to a fictional planet orbiting it, for instance). I'll keep working on it and see what I come up with. One option would be splitting this into stars in fiction and extrasolar planets in fiction, while turning planets in fiction into a disambiguation page for the latter and list of planets in science fiction (and perhaps Mercury in fiction, Venus in fiction, and so on...). TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: My concern is that the article (X and Y in Z) is formed in a vague and WP:INDISCRIMINATE way that invites WP:OR, and even then, it's pretty short. But if it were reI'd be willing to give it some time to develop if the article were renamed and re-scoped. Or even split, with hopes of expanding both. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an editor, just a lowly user, but I just wanted to say I love this page and use it all the time to suggest colony names when I'm gaming. I'll be sad to see it go.

Will the historical versions of this page still be available once it's gone. 108.31.3.18 (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it does get deleted, try the Wayback Machine as it has numerous backups of the page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, and I hope this will be preserved in history. Even better - if someone would care enough to copy this to TVTROPES... maybe you'd like to help? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move (or just merge? It wasn't the original scope of the article) to Planets in science fiction to tighten the scope and make it less arbitrary. Merge the "stars" section to Star, adding an "in fiction" section. I assume it must have had one at some point, but probably got spun off to sweep the cruft under the rug. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY (assuming it is kept as the TompaDompa prose version). It really can't be kept the way it was though, per all the arguments made above. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a perfectly good article, or at any rate capable of being so, at least in the form I am seeing, which is possibly after some WP:HEY work has been done. Maybe it was bad before. I mean it is original work, yes, so are very many things that we have here. List of statues of Queen Victoria and many scores of thousands of articles like that. If we had to copy a list that someone else made for articles like that, it'd be plagiarism, which'd be worse, and copyvio too really.
  Everything we do, creating articles by choosing and melding material from various sources, deciding what belongs and what doesn't, is original work, for goodness' sake. WP:OR is to be invoked when there's a problem. There's no problem here, it's just incomplete. Sure the article could become really big, maybe too big (but I mean adding material to articles so that they become bigger is not a bad thing), in which case it can be split up or trimmed using some reasonable criteria. Sure, there are articles that don't belong here on account of being too detailed about a subject. But this isn't one.
  Also I dislike terms like "fancrufty", which doesn't put me in a receptive mood as it just bourgeois snobbery and indicates that you are coming the matter with prejudgement, particularly when we are talking about "science fiction in general" rather than "Star Wars" or something. I'd prefer if terms like that are avoided. Herostratus (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Herostratus: If you are curious, this is what the article looked like when it was nominated. Which obviously bears very little resemblance to the current version. TompaDompa (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait wait wait wut? Keep and restore. Y'all practically erased the article. Why. Why would you do that. What do you think we are trying to do here??? It was better before. Well, after the article is kept we can talk about that I suppose.

  As I said, original research is only a problem if its a problem. If you're synthesizing a new idea, or implying something in error. The idea here seems to be "Lots of science fiction stories have stars and planets in them", which is not a new idea. It's just true. If you're saying the idea is "Lots of science fiction stories have stars and planets in them, and we're cherry-picking only some of them to make some point", that's not true. The writers are not doing that. It's just that the article is not complete. So what is the problem? Don't WP:SHOUT in ALL CAPS at me about this rule and that rule. We all know there are a lot of rules here, many contradictory, and that the devil can quote scripture. Tell me in plain English why you all want to prevent the reader from getting access to this information. It's not like we're trying to decide if its worth our time to make this article. Somebody already has. It's just a question of whether or not to increase entropy by scattering this information to the wind.

  The "primary-secondary-tertiary" rubric is taken from academia. It is fine for academia (I guess) but for what we are trying to do here, not so much. It's one data point of many to consider, yes. But don't give me four legs good two legs bad. We're supposed to be using our brains here. We are talking about throwing a fair amount of some people's work into the dustbin. Tell me why, in this article, the use of primary sources degrades the reader's experience. Can you? I'm all ears. Should the article include only those entities where some obscure reviewer has randomly happened to note "This article takes place on Alph Woo" and not include those where the review randomly hasn't? Why. Why. Good grief.

  It there's stuff that's not ref'd, ref it. If you don't have the time or interest to do that (quite understandable), tag it. If there's reason to believe it's maybe not true, delete it. Keep in mind that, for good or ill, works of literature are considered reliable sources for their own contents here. We don't need refs to describe the contents or plot of a movie or book, the rubric is "To check the accuracy of this data, get a copy of the book". Otherwise 90%+ of our plot sections of books and movies would have to be deleted.

  Sorry to be harsh, but if you all are going to be trying to pull stuff like this, you are going to be called to task. It's depressing to see what we are more and more becoming. Herostratus (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In plain English, compiling raw data about works of fiction is not Wikipedia's purpose, nor is analysing the same (it is, however, TV Tropes' and Wikia/Fandom's purpose). Compiling analysis about works of fiction made by others is, however. The latter approach has resulted in several WP:Featured articles: Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction, and Sun in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SF X Fantasy Rayforce

SF X Fantasy Rayforce (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)

A television series that never was. Fails WP:GNG Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Interesting niche stuff about Korean planned and apparently abandoned TV series. Korean wiki article has no references at all. Current sourcing: 1) English language email interview with the director at scifijapan.com [1]. According to [2], this is "a fan-made website", there is no information on who conducted the intereview 2) a Korean language news article [3] from thisisgame.com, by "Reporter Park Sang-beom". According to NamuWiki [4] it is " a webzine frequently visited by people in the industry". So the sources are borderline reliable, that provide some SIGCOV of this. The nominator failed to do a WP:BEFORE (WP:TROUT is awarded). There is next to nothing else under English title. Sadly, I am not fluent in Korean, so I rely on machine translation, but I see some coverage, ex. [5] for example states "The demo video of the science fiction drama 'Space Electric Ray Force', scheduled to be broadcast in September 2010, is receiving great response from netizens", however the source is some minor Korean news site. There is various other coverage: [6] - some of it may be rewritten press releases, Korean news websites are not great (although frankly coverage of such niche topics in English and other languages is often less than Pulitzer-winning too...). Bottom line is that we need someone familiar with Korean Internet to comment on whether there is some reliable, SIGCOV coverage. What I see is borderline, and given the nominator did not bother to analyze the sources or do BEFORE, and nobody else presented a critique of the article or sourcing - a week keep is justified. PS. I've added a bit about the cast, and refs to support the claims from ko wiki (which as I said has no refs); I hope my machine translation of the refs is not faulty. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for reviewing the references. I suggest we stick to Wikipedia:TVSERIES. I know, it is not a notability guideline but a tool to help determine notability. It says: "In most cases, a television series or season is not eligible for an article until it has been confirmed by reliable sources to have started filming (excluding a pilot's filming)". I checked the referenced interview; it was held at a time when filming had not started. For want of confirmation in reliable, independent sources that filming indeed had started, I maintain my deletion proposal. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur that this did not get filmed, but the promo video attracted some attention. I will stand by my weak keep, while hoping editors more fluent in Korean than me, and familiar with the reliability of Korean websites, will chime in. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]