 | 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:
- 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:| watch |
- Related deletion sorting
Tor Valum
- Tor Valum ( | 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)
I'm not seeing any evidence of individual notability here. While the unused scripts of Rise of Skywalker have coverage, Valum has absolutely none. The Yahoo source is referring to the script exclusively (With only one mention of Valum in the whole article), ScriptShadow doesn't seem to have a proper editorial team and is thus unreliable, LRMOnline seems reliable at a glance but is still almost exclusively covering the script as a whole, with Valum only a part of it, while CBR has no bearing on notability per WP:VALNET. The development is entirely about the script, with the Polygon source and the Collider source not even mentioning Valum. There's no evidence of this character having notability separate from the script. Additionally, the current uploaded image for Valum is a copyright violation, as it has been uploaded to the Commons with no attribution. Additionally, while it isn't an exact match (And Earwig won't let me check this myself) the plot summary in the article is highly similar to the summary found here: https://unpublished-villains.fandom.com/wiki/Tor_Valum in numerous areas, and appears to be at the bare minimum partial plagiarism. This article seems to fall afoul of multiple different issues. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Star Wars: Duel of the Fates - Not only non-notable in general, it seems from the little bit of coverage about him that he was not even a particularly major character in the unproduced script. Many of the sources being used here just very briefly mention the character while summarizing the leaked script, and several of them don't even mention the character at all, making this look like a case of WP:REFBOMBING. At best, this can just be redirected to the main article on the unproduced film, where he is already mentioned in the plot summary. Rorshacma ( talk) 23:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per Rorshacma. This can't be made into a substantial article with reliable sources, likely because it never had a public reception. Sometimes unreleased content can be WP:NOTABLE, but most of the time it isn't. Shooterwalker ( talk) 00:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Canderous Ordo
- Canderous Ordo ( | 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)
Was changed from a redirect by a new user, simply not seeing any amount of standalone notability for this character whatsoever; in my opinion it fails GNG clearly and the redirect should be restored. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom. Additionally, the text in this article has several similarities to
this article on Wookipedia and appears to run afoul of plagiarism and copyright violations as a result.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
23:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I believe that Wookipedia entries are Creative Commons, but it's not a good look for someone to come in and immediately just start copypasting articles regardless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 02:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per the nominator. As for Pokelego's comment, this doesn't appear to be the first time the user has put plagiarized content on this site. λ Negative MP1 23:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as what very little is actually cited to reliable secondary sources is insufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Lucky (Indian TV series)
AfDs for this article:
- Lucky (Indian TV series) ( | 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)
Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Tagged for notability since 2013.
Previous AfD had no participants, so closed as no consensus. Let's figure this one out! DonaldD23 talk to me 13:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_StarPlus#Drama_series - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Down to a Sunless Sea (Graham novel)
- Down to a Sunless Sea (Graham novel) ( | 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)
Non-notable novel by minor writer, no meaningful sourcing Orange Mike | Talk 22:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Ny Times reivew here [1] and a Kirkus Reviews item [2]. Probably just enough, two critical reviews. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I know that some interpret WP:BOOKCRIT as meaning that any book that gets a couple of reviews is notable. First, whether or not a book gets reviewed often is a function of the degree to which the publisher does its promotion - publishers *push*, reviewers do not *pull*. Second, there shouldn't be much weight given to Kirkus reviews because Kirkus reviews everything they receive, and their reviews are intended to indicate whether libraries should add the book to their collections. Third, I know that the policy does not state that the reviews have to be positive, but there is some common sense that says that it makes a difference. Negative reviews of factual works may be useful but fiction is art, not science, so there really isn't the kind of back and forth of facts or conclusions that you have in the non-fiction world. In this case, the reviews clearly state that this is a mediocre novel, with cliche'd writing. To further deny notability, this was presumably being made into a movie but almost ten years have passed and it has not happened. I don't know how to find out if the movie concept is totally abandoned, but this is another strike against this book. (Note that movie studios snap up lots of books, mainly to keep anyone else from using them. It's actually making them into movies that should be noted.) Lamona ( talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I disagree with Lamona's arguments. Wikipedia does not only contain articles on books with good reviews and a movie. I can see why Lamona wouldn't want to add this book to their bookshelf, but critical reviews are the definition of notability for a book, and anything else is
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Toughpigs (
talk)
18:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- You will need at least one more "non-trivial work", IMO, because the existence of a Kirkus review is pretty much the definition of trivial. Kirkus reviews every book coming out of a standard publisher, and the reviews are brief. They also are aimed at predicting popularity rather than cultural import. I ran through the EBSCO database and didn't find any. It's made more difficult because the title "Down to a sunless sea" has been used many times by different authors, including Neil Gaiman. I was able to learn that David Graham is a pseudonym of Evan Wright, an RAF pilot who claimed to have had psychic experiences. (Charman, R. (2017) ‘Research Note: The Gloveless Ghost of Air Gunner Stoker and Pilot Officer Douglas Worley’s Apparent Premonition of Death: Two Very Baffling and Disturbing Cases’, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 81(3), pp. 194–204.) He wrote under other names as well. I'll add this to the talk page.
Lamona (
talk)
19:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've also found reviews of the book in the Buffalo News and the South Bend Tribune. This should be plenty to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs ( talk) 20:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- You will need at least one more "non-trivial work", IMO, because the existence of a Kirkus review is pretty much the definition of trivial. Kirkus reviews every book coming out of a standard publisher, and the reviews are brief. They also are aimed at predicting popularity rather than cultural import. I ran through the EBSCO database and didn't find any. It's made more difficult because the title "Down to a sunless sea" has been used many times by different authors, including Neil Gaiman. I was able to learn that David Graham is a pseudonym of Evan Wright, an RAF pilot who claimed to have had psychic experiences. (Charman, R. (2017) ‘Research Note: The Gloveless Ghost of Air Gunner Stoker and Pilot Officer Douglas Worley’s Apparent Premonition of Death: Two Very Baffling and Disturbing Cases’, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 81(3), pp. 194–204.) He wrote under other names as well. I'll add this to the talk page.
Lamona (
talk)
19:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: I had originally created this article, and had to look up when. It was probably one of my first creations here, since I created it in January, 2004, or more than twenty years ago. Since then, dozens of other editors have contributed hundreds of additions and corrections to the article. If the book wasn't interesting to others I doubt it would have been regularly updated and revised. I concur with ToughPigs, I think Lamona's desire to "cancel" this article is more of a case that he does not like it than that it is not notworthy or qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia. As to the allegation that some critics consider it a "mediocre novel with cliche'd writing," first, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it, but it could be they do not like the subject matter: the story begins with the first-person narrative of a British airline pilot on a lay over in a bankrupt, third world country that is so impoverished that its neighbor country to the north imposed the death penalty for smuggling gasoline to it, and starving mobs try to rush airplanes leaving the country to someplace better, with military troops having to shoot them. The "third world country" in question? The United States after it exhausted its oil reserves. As the book progresses, things go from bad to worse. While later real-world events proved the scenario unlikely, I believe the book is a reasonable look into a dystopian New York City and how if the world is balanced on a knife's edge of sanity, any event can trigger a catastrophe. Not every book of this sort of dystopian future is necessarily going to get positive reviews, I think it is a relevant example of the zeitgeist of the period and how some people thought the 1970s oil crises might end. For these reasons, I urge retention of the review.
"Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."
Thank you.
Paul Robinson Rfc1394 ( talk) 00:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. At least four reliable sources review the book. That's above NBOOK and GNG. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
List of Doctor Who items
AfDs for this article:
- List of Doctor Who items ( | 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)
Does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of objects from a television program, such as "Celery". A lot of this is WP:OR, both in the content, and the arbitrary way in which non-notable objects are selected for inclusion. Jontesta ( talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta ( talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Retarget items in the list and Delete list.
- -Celery to Fifth Doctor
- -Chameleon Circuit to TARDIS
- -Hand of Omega to Remembrance of the Daleks
- -A Journal of Impossible Things to Human Nature (Doctor Who)
- -Key to Time to Doctor Who season 16
- -Matrix to Gallifrey
- -Delete severed hand due to lack of discernible name that can differentiate it from the concept of a severed hand
- -Delete Squareness Gun due to being non-notable and lacking a redirect target (Maybe Jack Harkness?)
- -Sonic Screwdriver has an article already
- -Superphone lacks a redirect and not really an important concept, delete
- -TARDIS has an article
- -Time Scoop to The Five Doctors
- Only objects I'm iffy on are Eye of Harmony, Psychic Paper, and Vortex Manipulator due to all three being important recurring elements in the series that lack a viable redirect. Maybe The Doctor (Doctor Who) for Psychic Paper, Gallifrey for Eye of Harmony, and Jack Harkness for Vortex Manipulator? I'm not sure.
- Either way, this list is, per nom, very CRUFTy, and I've honestly been meaning to getting rid of it myself. I will note per nom that most of these objects are at least the recurring (Meaning they're not really "non-notable") but there definitely is a lack of inclusion criteria and not much showcasing the list needs to be a separate thing from the other viable redirect targets for most if not all of the entities. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 23:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Proposal of Pokelego999 looks good. Srijanx22 ( talk) 06:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete There is no discussion in the article about why the items as a group are notable. It is an indiscriminate list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 19:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Zxcvbnm. The list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and the redirects can be pointed to new targets per Pokelego999. Shooterwalker ( talk) 00:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as a merge target of multiple NN other articles. The topic of the list is 'Doctor Who' not 'Doctor Who Items' so the topic is clearly notable, even though many of the individual elements are clearly not, which per
WP:CSC is a textbook application:
These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles
. Jclemens ( talk) 06:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Brian Campbell (game designer)
- Brian Campbell (game designer) ( | 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)
I cannot find any independent reliable sources with coverage of Campbell. As one of teams of people, he is credited on multiple notable role-playing games. I think it's stretching
NAUTHOR #3 beyond the intent of that SNG to consider every person who is credited on those games as inherently notable. (#3: "...has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"
) I cannot find any reviews of any of those games that call out Campbell's contributions.
Schazjmd
(talk)
14:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. Schazjmd (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I fully get how annoying White Wolf Publishing's approach to book credits has been, over the years - by crediting the contributions of everyone involved, they often don't end up attributing authorship clearly to anyone.
- However, for Ratkin (1999), Umbra (2001) and Tribebook: Bone Gnawers (2001) Campbell is listed as sole author - that satisfies WP:NAUTHOR for me. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:NBASIC, no secondary coverage. I don't think he meets WP:NAUTHOR either, only major work seems to be Victorian Age: Vampire. -- Mika1h ( talk) 15:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the arguments of Newimpartial, but failing that we could always merge or redirect to List of role-playing game designers. BOZ ( talk) 21:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Evil-Lyn
- Evil-Lyn ( | 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)
No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 14:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 14:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep There appears to be enough sourcing, and the nomination statement doesn't engage with what there is. There are multiple CBR references, but there appear to be enough RS to meet GNG, and the burden of BEFORE is on the nominator to show how what's already in the article does not.
Jclemens (
talk)
16:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, this just me; but its only a 2 low quality situational Valnet sources [3] [4] in the article + this source from before and for me it isn't enough yet for GNG, due to the source quality. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 20:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Per
Wikipedia:VALNET, which is also cited at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Valnet sources do not contribute to notability in discussions such as these. As all of these are VALNET, there is no notability displayed right now.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
20:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are no less than five non-Valnet online sources and one magazine source listed. The above does not constitute a source analysis.
Jclemens (
talk)
22:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- -The Los Angeles Times source is merely a one sentence mention of Linda Gary voicing her. Same deal for the Polygon source, except with a different VA.
- -The San Francisco Chronicle source is a plot summary overview of her character
- -The MTV Link is broken, so I cannot view it. I cannot view the SFX sources either.
- -The HashtagTV source doesn't seem to even mention her? The source also doesn't seem reliable, and even then is only verifying that she'll appear in an upcoming production.
- There's not even commentary or dev info here- at best there's two sources verifying VAs, which is not enough to pass the GNG bar. Nom seems to have done a BEFORE, and a brief BEFORE didn't yield much for me, either. Do note if I've missed anything, but this seems to be a rather minor character with very little additional sourcing to back up any substance. Ref count is not equal to notability.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
04:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I fixed the MTV link so it works.
https://www.mtv.com/news/jat6pt/masters-of-the-universe-classics-faceless-one-review Each to search for the title of something and the name of the source to find it.
Dream Focus
09:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but MTV link is broken again; all links to mtv.com archives seem intentionally broken, but wayback may have a copy of it. Regardless, the SFX source has still not been dealt with. Jclemens ( talk) 07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I fixed the MTV link so it works.
https://www.mtv.com/news/jat6pt/masters-of-the-universe-classics-faceless-one-review Each to search for the title of something and the name of the source to find it.
Dream Focus
09:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are no less than five non-Valnet online sources and one magazine source listed. The above does not constitute a source analysis.
Jclemens (
talk)
22:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. I don't have the time to go through and search for sources myself to form an opinion on notability, but this is the obvious WP:Alternative to deletion which preserves the article in the history for possible future use and I am pretty sure something from here can improve the corresponding section at the target. Daranios ( talk) 15:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Article is definitely in a pretty bad state, but Evil-Lyn is one of the most significant characters in the franchise. Given the presence of MOTU: Revelation, a couple of sources do exist pertaining to Lena Headey's portrayal of the character; interviews and reviews. From some research I've done, although critics from the 1980s don't seem to bring up Meg Foster often when discussing the live-action film, retrospective reviews do somewhat often single her out for praise. The article itself may not show it, but sources and coverage of Evil-Lyn do exist.--
PanagiotisZois (
talk)
18:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, I don't know what I should respond to this. This looks like WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument somehow. Interview sources are primary and does not help GNG; same with Valnet sources. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 00:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Per above, interviews count as primary. Additionally, could you please cite some of these sources you're referring to?
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
00:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Interviews may count as primary, but depending on the other/surrounding writeup may well count as independent RSes contributing to notability.
Jclemens (
talk)
07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- How can an interview be primary for a fictional character? Were they interviewing Evil-Lyn in character on some in-universe interview show? I would think that only the show itself is a primary source for the show. BD2412 T 00:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Interviews may count as primary, but depending on the other/surrounding writeup may well count as independent RSes contributing to notability.
Jclemens (
talk)
07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the claims of @ Jclemens: and @ PanagiotisZois:. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 23:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters as stated by user:Daranios. Significant coverage only comes from CBR, a questionable source according to WP:VALNET, and the wikis for He-Man MOTU, but these are tertiary sources that either do not cite references or just makes circular references to articles within that wiki. Not notable for a separate article at this time. Prof.PMarini ( talk) 14:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Merge and Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge the few sourced sentences to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Evil-Lyn, which already seems pretty balanced. Real-world info on animated characters will be quite hard to come by, so better develop this in the character list until it potentially hits WP:SPINOUT quality. – sgeureka t• c 10:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The sourcing is just about sufficient. Cortador ( talk) 11:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to the character list for now due to lack of sourcing and a clear WP:ATD. No objection to a spin-out later if enough sources are found to rewrite the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
| 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:
- 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:| watch |
- Related deletion sorting
Tor Valum
- Tor Valum ( | 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)
I'm not seeing any evidence of individual notability here. While the unused scripts of Rise of Skywalker have coverage, Valum has absolutely none. The Yahoo source is referring to the script exclusively (With only one mention of Valum in the whole article), ScriptShadow doesn't seem to have a proper editorial team and is thus unreliable, LRMOnline seems reliable at a glance but is still almost exclusively covering the script as a whole, with Valum only a part of it, while CBR has no bearing on notability per WP:VALNET. The development is entirely about the script, with the Polygon source and the Collider source not even mentioning Valum. There's no evidence of this character having notability separate from the script. Additionally, the current uploaded image for Valum is a copyright violation, as it has been uploaded to the Commons with no attribution. Additionally, while it isn't an exact match (And Earwig won't let me check this myself) the plot summary in the article is highly similar to the summary found here: https://unpublished-villains.fandom.com/wiki/Tor_Valum in numerous areas, and appears to be at the bare minimum partial plagiarism. This article seems to fall afoul of multiple different issues. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Star Wars: Duel of the Fates - Not only non-notable in general, it seems from the little bit of coverage about him that he was not even a particularly major character in the unproduced script. Many of the sources being used here just very briefly mention the character while summarizing the leaked script, and several of them don't even mention the character at all, making this look like a case of WP:REFBOMBING. At best, this can just be redirected to the main article on the unproduced film, where he is already mentioned in the plot summary. Rorshacma ( talk) 23:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per Rorshacma. This can't be made into a substantial article with reliable sources, likely because it never had a public reception. Sometimes unreleased content can be WP:NOTABLE, but most of the time it isn't. Shooterwalker ( talk) 00:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Canderous Ordo
- Canderous Ordo ( | 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)
Was changed from a redirect by a new user, simply not seeing any amount of standalone notability for this character whatsoever; in my opinion it fails GNG clearly and the redirect should be restored. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom. Additionally, the text in this article has several similarities to
this article on Wookipedia and appears to run afoul of plagiarism and copyright violations as a result.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
23:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I believe that Wookipedia entries are Creative Commons, but it's not a good look for someone to come in and immediately just start copypasting articles regardless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 02:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per the nominator. As for Pokelego's comment, this doesn't appear to be the first time the user has put plagiarized content on this site. λ Negative MP1 23:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as what very little is actually cited to reliable secondary sources is insufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Lucky (Indian TV series)
AfDs for this article:
- Lucky (Indian TV series) ( | 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)
Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Tagged for notability since 2013.
Previous AfD had no participants, so closed as no consensus. Let's figure this one out! DonaldD23 talk to me 13:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_StarPlus#Drama_series - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Down to a Sunless Sea (Graham novel)
- Down to a Sunless Sea (Graham novel) ( | 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)
Non-notable novel by minor writer, no meaningful sourcing Orange Mike | Talk 22:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Ny Times reivew here [1] and a Kirkus Reviews item [2]. Probably just enough, two critical reviews. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I know that some interpret WP:BOOKCRIT as meaning that any book that gets a couple of reviews is notable. First, whether or not a book gets reviewed often is a function of the degree to which the publisher does its promotion - publishers *push*, reviewers do not *pull*. Second, there shouldn't be much weight given to Kirkus reviews because Kirkus reviews everything they receive, and their reviews are intended to indicate whether libraries should add the book to their collections. Third, I know that the policy does not state that the reviews have to be positive, but there is some common sense that says that it makes a difference. Negative reviews of factual works may be useful but fiction is art, not science, so there really isn't the kind of back and forth of facts or conclusions that you have in the non-fiction world. In this case, the reviews clearly state that this is a mediocre novel, with cliche'd writing. To further deny notability, this was presumably being made into a movie but almost ten years have passed and it has not happened. I don't know how to find out if the movie concept is totally abandoned, but this is another strike against this book. (Note that movie studios snap up lots of books, mainly to keep anyone else from using them. It's actually making them into movies that should be noted.) Lamona ( talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I disagree with Lamona's arguments. Wikipedia does not only contain articles on books with good reviews and a movie. I can see why Lamona wouldn't want to add this book to their bookshelf, but critical reviews are the definition of notability for a book, and anything else is
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Toughpigs (
talk)
18:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- You will need at least one more "non-trivial work", IMO, because the existence of a Kirkus review is pretty much the definition of trivial. Kirkus reviews every book coming out of a standard publisher, and the reviews are brief. They also are aimed at predicting popularity rather than cultural import. I ran through the EBSCO database and didn't find any. It's made more difficult because the title "Down to a sunless sea" has been used many times by different authors, including Neil Gaiman. I was able to learn that David Graham is a pseudonym of Evan Wright, an RAF pilot who claimed to have had psychic experiences. (Charman, R. (2017) ‘Research Note: The Gloveless Ghost of Air Gunner Stoker and Pilot Officer Douglas Worley’s Apparent Premonition of Death: Two Very Baffling and Disturbing Cases’, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 81(3), pp. 194–204.) He wrote under other names as well. I'll add this to the talk page.
Lamona (
talk)
19:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've also found reviews of the book in the Buffalo News and the South Bend Tribune. This should be plenty to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs ( talk) 20:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- You will need at least one more "non-trivial work", IMO, because the existence of a Kirkus review is pretty much the definition of trivial. Kirkus reviews every book coming out of a standard publisher, and the reviews are brief. They also are aimed at predicting popularity rather than cultural import. I ran through the EBSCO database and didn't find any. It's made more difficult because the title "Down to a sunless sea" has been used many times by different authors, including Neil Gaiman. I was able to learn that David Graham is a pseudonym of Evan Wright, an RAF pilot who claimed to have had psychic experiences. (Charman, R. (2017) ‘Research Note: The Gloveless Ghost of Air Gunner Stoker and Pilot Officer Douglas Worley’s Apparent Premonition of Death: Two Very Baffling and Disturbing Cases’, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 81(3), pp. 194–204.) He wrote under other names as well. I'll add this to the talk page.
Lamona (
talk)
19:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: I had originally created this article, and had to look up when. It was probably one of my first creations here, since I created it in January, 2004, or more than twenty years ago. Since then, dozens of other editors have contributed hundreds of additions and corrections to the article. If the book wasn't interesting to others I doubt it would have been regularly updated and revised. I concur with ToughPigs, I think Lamona's desire to "cancel" this article is more of a case that he does not like it than that it is not notworthy or qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia. As to the allegation that some critics consider it a "mediocre novel with cliche'd writing," first, that's their opinion and they're entitled to it, but it could be they do not like the subject matter: the story begins with the first-person narrative of a British airline pilot on a lay over in a bankrupt, third world country that is so impoverished that its neighbor country to the north imposed the death penalty for smuggling gasoline to it, and starving mobs try to rush airplanes leaving the country to someplace better, with military troops having to shoot them. The "third world country" in question? The United States after it exhausted its oil reserves. As the book progresses, things go from bad to worse. While later real-world events proved the scenario unlikely, I believe the book is a reasonable look into a dystopian New York City and how if the world is balanced on a knife's edge of sanity, any event can trigger a catastrophe. Not every book of this sort of dystopian future is necessarily going to get positive reviews, I think it is a relevant example of the zeitgeist of the period and how some people thought the 1970s oil crises might end. For these reasons, I urge retention of the review.
"Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."
Thank you.
Paul Robinson Rfc1394 ( talk) 00:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. At least four reliable sources review the book. That's above NBOOK and GNG. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
List of Doctor Who items
AfDs for this article:
- List of Doctor Who items ( | 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)
Does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of objects from a television program, such as "Celery". A lot of this is WP:OR, both in the content, and the arbitrary way in which non-notable objects are selected for inclusion. Jontesta ( talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta ( talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Retarget items in the list and Delete list.
- -Celery to Fifth Doctor
- -Chameleon Circuit to TARDIS
- -Hand of Omega to Remembrance of the Daleks
- -A Journal of Impossible Things to Human Nature (Doctor Who)
- -Key to Time to Doctor Who season 16
- -Matrix to Gallifrey
- -Delete severed hand due to lack of discernible name that can differentiate it from the concept of a severed hand
- -Delete Squareness Gun due to being non-notable and lacking a redirect target (Maybe Jack Harkness?)
- -Sonic Screwdriver has an article already
- -Superphone lacks a redirect and not really an important concept, delete
- -TARDIS has an article
- -Time Scoop to The Five Doctors
- Only objects I'm iffy on are Eye of Harmony, Psychic Paper, and Vortex Manipulator due to all three being important recurring elements in the series that lack a viable redirect. Maybe The Doctor (Doctor Who) for Psychic Paper, Gallifrey for Eye of Harmony, and Jack Harkness for Vortex Manipulator? I'm not sure.
- Either way, this list is, per nom, very CRUFTy, and I've honestly been meaning to getting rid of it myself. I will note per nom that most of these objects are at least the recurring (Meaning they're not really "non-notable") but there definitely is a lack of inclusion criteria and not much showcasing the list needs to be a separate thing from the other viable redirect targets for most if not all of the entities. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 23:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Proposal of Pokelego999 looks good. Srijanx22 ( talk) 06:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete There is no discussion in the article about why the items as a group are notable. It is an indiscriminate list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 19:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Zxcvbnm. The list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and the redirects can be pointed to new targets per Pokelego999. Shooterwalker ( talk) 00:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as a merge target of multiple NN other articles. The topic of the list is 'Doctor Who' not 'Doctor Who Items' so the topic is clearly notable, even though many of the individual elements are clearly not, which per
WP:CSC is a textbook application:
These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles
. Jclemens ( talk) 06:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Brian Campbell (game designer)
- Brian Campbell (game designer) ( | 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)
I cannot find any independent reliable sources with coverage of Campbell. As one of teams of people, he is credited on multiple notable role-playing games. I think it's stretching
NAUTHOR #3 beyond the intent of that SNG to consider every person who is credited on those games as inherently notable. (#3: "...has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"
) I cannot find any reviews of any of those games that call out Campbell's contributions.
Schazjmd
(talk)
14:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. Schazjmd (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I fully get how annoying White Wolf Publishing's approach to book credits has been, over the years - by crediting the contributions of everyone involved, they often don't end up attributing authorship clearly to anyone.
- However, for Ratkin (1999), Umbra (2001) and Tribebook: Bone Gnawers (2001) Campbell is listed as sole author - that satisfies WP:NAUTHOR for me. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:NBASIC, no secondary coverage. I don't think he meets WP:NAUTHOR either, only major work seems to be Victorian Age: Vampire. -- Mika1h ( talk) 15:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the arguments of Newimpartial, but failing that we could always merge or redirect to List of role-playing game designers. BOZ ( talk) 21:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Evil-Lyn
- Evil-Lyn ( | 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)
No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 14:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 14:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep There appears to be enough sourcing, and the nomination statement doesn't engage with what there is. There are multiple CBR references, but there appear to be enough RS to meet GNG, and the burden of BEFORE is on the nominator to show how what's already in the article does not.
Jclemens (
talk)
16:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, this just me; but its only a 2 low quality situational Valnet sources [3] [4] in the article + this source from before and for me it isn't enough yet for GNG, due to the source quality. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 20:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Per
Wikipedia:VALNET, which is also cited at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Valnet sources do not contribute to notability in discussions such as these. As all of these are VALNET, there is no notability displayed right now.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
20:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are no less than five non-Valnet online sources and one magazine source listed. The above does not constitute a source analysis.
Jclemens (
talk)
22:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- -The Los Angeles Times source is merely a one sentence mention of Linda Gary voicing her. Same deal for the Polygon source, except with a different VA.
- -The San Francisco Chronicle source is a plot summary overview of her character
- -The MTV Link is broken, so I cannot view it. I cannot view the SFX sources either.
- -The HashtagTV source doesn't seem to even mention her? The source also doesn't seem reliable, and even then is only verifying that she'll appear in an upcoming production.
- There's not even commentary or dev info here- at best there's two sources verifying VAs, which is not enough to pass the GNG bar. Nom seems to have done a BEFORE, and a brief BEFORE didn't yield much for me, either. Do note if I've missed anything, but this seems to be a rather minor character with very little additional sourcing to back up any substance. Ref count is not equal to notability.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
04:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I fixed the MTV link so it works.
https://www.mtv.com/news/jat6pt/masters-of-the-universe-classics-faceless-one-review Each to search for the title of something and the name of the source to find it.
Dream Focus
09:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but MTV link is broken again; all links to mtv.com archives seem intentionally broken, but wayback may have a copy of it. Regardless, the SFX source has still not been dealt with. Jclemens ( talk) 07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I fixed the MTV link so it works.
https://www.mtv.com/news/jat6pt/masters-of-the-universe-classics-faceless-one-review Each to search for the title of something and the name of the source to find it.
Dream Focus
09:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are no less than five non-Valnet online sources and one magazine source listed. The above does not constitute a source analysis.
Jclemens (
talk)
22:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. I don't have the time to go through and search for sources myself to form an opinion on notability, but this is the obvious WP:Alternative to deletion which preserves the article in the history for possible future use and I am pretty sure something from here can improve the corresponding section at the target. Daranios ( talk) 15:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Article is definitely in a pretty bad state, but Evil-Lyn is one of the most significant characters in the franchise. Given the presence of MOTU: Revelation, a couple of sources do exist pertaining to Lena Headey's portrayal of the character; interviews and reviews. From some research I've done, although critics from the 1980s don't seem to bring up Meg Foster often when discussing the live-action film, retrospective reviews do somewhat often single her out for praise. The article itself may not show it, but sources and coverage of Evil-Lyn do exist.--
PanagiotisZois (
talk)
18:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, I don't know what I should respond to this. This looks like WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument somehow. Interview sources are primary and does not help GNG; same with Valnet sources. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 00:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Per above, interviews count as primary. Additionally, could you please cite some of these sources you're referring to?
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
00:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Interviews may count as primary, but depending on the other/surrounding writeup may well count as independent RSes contributing to notability.
Jclemens (
talk)
07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- How can an interview be primary for a fictional character? Were they interviewing Evil-Lyn in character on some in-universe interview show? I would think that only the show itself is a primary source for the show. BD2412 T 00:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Interviews may count as primary, but depending on the other/surrounding writeup may well count as independent RSes contributing to notability.
Jclemens (
talk)
07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the claims of @ Jclemens: and @ PanagiotisZois:. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 23:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters as stated by user:Daranios. Significant coverage only comes from CBR, a questionable source according to WP:VALNET, and the wikis for He-Man MOTU, but these are tertiary sources that either do not cite references or just makes circular references to articles within that wiki. Not notable for a separate article at this time. Prof.PMarini ( talk) 14:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Merge and Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge the few sourced sentences to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Evil-Lyn, which already seems pretty balanced. Real-world info on animated characters will be quite hard to come by, so better develop this in the character list until it potentially hits WP:SPINOUT quality. – sgeureka t• c 10:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The sourcing is just about sufficient. Cortador ( talk) 11:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to the character list for now due to lack of sourcing and a clear WP:ATD. No objection to a spin-out later if enough sources are found to rewrite the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)