🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Fantasy
Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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.
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:
Purge page cache watch
Related deletion sorting

Science fiction and fantasy

[edit]

The History of the Galaxy

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
The History of the Galaxy (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)

I'm working on the unreferenced articles backlog. I can't seem to find any reliable sources covering this book series, whether searching its name in English, in Russian, or in its Cyrillic script name. The previous AfD doesn't seem to have discussed references whatsoever (that's 2008 for ya). Unless someone can find multiple pieces of significant coverage in reliable sources, this seems to be a WP:GNG failure. SilverserenC 23:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing anywhere. I would normally vote redirect but the author is equally non-notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I found one quite lengthy piece on him [1] like 10 seconds after I said that which shows to me he may be notable if there is more like this (seems to be from an established Russian outlet, ru:Кубанские новости. So change my vote to redirect to Andrey Livadny as that article seems potentially notable (which is not me saying I would vote keep on an afd for that article, but it's enough for a redirect, imo). PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The author is probably notable, yeah, so Redirect makes sense to me. While that one piece seems like it counts as coverage for the author, the only non-interview question response from the author part that mentions the book series is "Secondly, he has just completed work on a new novel, "The Fugitive." Like his other "Galactic Stories" books, this work continues the plot of previous editions ("Blind Dash," "Target"), setting the stage for the story of "Dabog."" So I don't think that would count as significant coverage of the book series. SilverserenC 03:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is not significant coverage of the book series, apologies if I was unclear. If the author was totally non-notable I would just not bother with a redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2025)

Hem/Cai

[edit]
Hem/Cai (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)

Unsourced article. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Heroic Age characters

[edit]
List of Heroic Age characters (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 usual 99% unreferenced plot summary, 1% with refs are to the anime episides or production websites. And 1/3 of the article is off topic even (not about characters, but about the in-universe lore - the Labors section). Sigh. This can be redirected, maybe slightly merged, to Heroic Age (TV series)#Storyline. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no sourcing beyond fan sites/churnalism sites from what I can find with a quick search. Opposed to a redirect as "Heroic age" as a term is general and, without any prior knowledge of the anime's existence, I expected this to be about heroes from the Greek Heroic Age. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Heroic Age (TV series)#Storyline. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 15:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trantor

[edit]
Trantor (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 was recently restored from a 2019 redirect with the explanation that the "redirected page shows very little information about the topic". This article, about a fictional sci-fi planet, is fancrufty and has notability issues, and only contains primary sources (the books themselves). My restoration of the redirect was reverted with the edit summary "restoring sources" and the suggestion that the redirect destination Foundation universe#Trantor be expanded with more info on this topic before another redirect. I am laughing because the burden to improve that section is on the editor who has undone the redirect, not the rest of us at large. So I am again suggesting that the redirect to Foundation universe#Trantor be restored. The article content will be perfectly preserved for whoever decides to find some actual sources and recreate this content in some form. — TAnthonyTalk 17:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The topic itself is probably notable, but nothing in this article is helping make that case. Unless someone is going to make an effort to improve this article or the redirect destination in the next few days, it is not appropriate to leave this article as-is. Interested editors then have all the time in the world to mine info from the diff, it's not lost.— TAnthonyTalk 17:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Foundation universe. There is one reliable secondary source, which could be a staring point to get more sources; however, that source alone is not enough to keep a separate article. All content in Wikipedia should be sourced, so a section in the Foundation universe article for Trantor can be sourced with that reference. The article should be trimmed and keep only relevant information in the section. LoЯd ۞pεth 17:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if by "one reliable secondary source" you are referring to the Greenwood Encyclopedia in the article or the one I have raised above. By now I am quite convinced of the notability of the topic of Trantor, with widely varying sources out there: Invoking the Beyond gives a counterpoint to the review cited above by comparing Trator to Tokyo and Japanese Culture. The Multicultural Matrix has a lot of plot summary but also comments on the relevance of Trantor at various places. "Asimov’s Foundation – turning a data story into an NFT artwork" looks a things from a very different angle, but gives insights on the relevance of the location of Trantor within Asimov's major work. "The Colonial Metropolis in the Work of Asimov and Clarke" sounds very promising, but I cannot access it. And then most importantly Imagining Urban Futures, starting p. 61, has a comparative look on Trantor as a megapolis, and "Trantor: the city-World" is a full academic article focussed on our topic here. I assume there's more in the big analysis works on Asimov, but for me this list is sufficient. Daranios (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have looked at the content of the article before and it showed a quite sufficent number of sources that's not a primary source, the previously removed article provided much narrative and information as well as sources compared to the redirected page, which showed very little (almost none even) information compared to other Foundation universe#Planetary systems, stars and planets topics in that particular subpage, which itself contained no more than two cited sources over more than a dozen topics, considering how important the nominated article's topic is to the Foundation series itself. However, I must assert one thing here, that is I'm not responsible neither holding any burden to expand that article, because it is not me who wanted to make a change to the article, but rather to temporarily keep the sourced information while waiting for other editors (who actually care enough to make a change) to decide what's best for this article's fate. Again I must assert that I am not the one responsible here, instead those who actually wanted to make a change to this article, because if indeed redirecting, merging, or deleting the article is necessary, then I suggest to not fully discard the information or the content inside the targeted article (see Wikipedia:Redirect#Content of the replaced article). Mhatopzz (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are exactly two non-primary sources (#18 & #19) that relate directly to the topic, both of which support the comparison to the Roman Empire. That's great, but not enough to justify an individual article. My point about restoring the redirect is, you found the content just fine, it's hidden and not lost.— TAnthonyTalk 20:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to justify to keep the article alone for a long time (as I stated before I'm restoring it temporarily to decide what's best for the sourced contents within the article instead of discarding it) while ignoring its notability. but hey, if the goal here is to create a redirect or merge the article, can't those two non-primary sources and the cited content be kept and added to the redirected page instead of blanking the entire article and left those sourced materials? I mean, two sources is already great, and it covers a quite substantial amount of content. But, if you are unable to crop that specific sources, I will voluntarily do it, and I support the idea of redirecting or merging, just as long as everyone are responsible enough to not fully discard sourced contents. Let me know what's your and other editors final decisions are. Mhatopzz (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheInevitables (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yomiko Readman

[edit]
Yomiko Readman (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)

Starting this AfD after a bold WP:BLAR on my part, which was reverted by User:Historyday01.

This character does not appear to be independently notable. I could not find any useful sources about her with a WP:BEFORE, and, looking at the sources already cited, none of them appear to satisfy either WP:SIGCOV nor the recommendations outlined at WP:NFCHAR. Most of them are either WP:PRSOURCEs or else reviews of the series in general which only mention Yomiko in passing. A couple are listicles, and a couple others are books which, although I cannot access their full text, mostly only seem to briefly mention Yomiko.

The majority of the article is plot summary, and no real-world details about her character's development or reception is included. Even if there were any, I see no compelling reason why any such details could not be covered sufficiently at the articles about the series and the various entries in its media franchise. Such details would not necessarily show that the character deserves a standalone article. If there are any sources which prove the character to be independently notable, they should certainly be added (and I will be happy to withdraw my nomination if that is shown to be the case), but I have not found any. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I feel that this AfD is wrongheaded, as there could have been an effort to gather sources first, then a further determination at that time. All the issues you describe could be fixed through editing, rather than going through this process. Here is what I just added to the reception section:

Her character was received positively. Zuleika of Fandom called her a "typical glasses-wearing, book-infatuated klutz" and noted her obsession "with books," listing her among characters in other classic anime OVAs.[1] Christopher Bolton, a Japanese and comparative literature scholar, noted that in the Read or Die OVA, her book obsession is treated as an "unhealthy preoccupation" distancing her from real life, with a key theme being her realization, gradually, that real relationships, and real people, are "more important than literature."[2] Readman's character influenced Mei in Overwatch, at the suggestion of equipment producer Ben Zhang, and noted by animator David Gibson.[3] Erica Victoria Espejo, a well-known anime cosplayer and author, noted she wore a cosplay of Readman to a convention, was praised for embodying "the essence" of the character, and then went on to cosplay as Readman again following this.[4]

Otherwise, apart from a mention in Jer Alford's "Obscure O.V.A.s", I found writings about Yomiko Readman in:
  • You Don't Look Like a Librarian: Shattering Stereotypes and Creating Positive New Images in the Internet Age, page 52 [I cannot read this because Google Books does not let you, but I can gather this discusses Readman and her role as a librarian stereotype] [already in the article]
  • A page from The Publishers Weekly, Volume 253, Issues 10-17 (sadly, Google Books doesn't give me much of a preview)
  • Page 540 of The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917 (sadly, Google Books doesn't give me much of a preview) [The Anime Encyclopedia, 3rd Revised Edition: A Century of Japanese Animation] is in the article, but this is a different edition]
  • Read or Die Vol 1 Review in IGN, of which four of the five paragraphs are about Readman's character in the manga
  • Review on Christopher Bolton’s Interpreting Anime which talks about Readman in Bolton's book on pages 117 and 118
  • Knjižnice i knjižničari u popularnoj kulturi [translated as "Libraries and librarians in popular culture" (in Croatian, looks to be a thesis of some kind) talks about Readman on pages 55-58, saying, in part, on page 57, "Yomiko is an extreme example of a bibliophile and a paper craftswoman in the literal sense. She can do anything she wants with paper, including creating magical shields, weapons, etc. R.O.D. has, through films, comics, and TV series, developed her own little world that is still revered by many loyal fans today...Yomiko is described as a typical bookworm, an introverted substitute teacher who wears glasses and is obsessed with reading and collecting books. As a true bibliophile, she often spends all her money on buying various books, so much so that her entire apartment is filled to the ceiling with romance and other novels."
Otherwise, some of the ANN articles cited in the article already, like "R.O.D The Complete Blu-Ray", "Read or Die DVD", and "R.O.D.: Read or Die G.novel 4" have a big focus on her, and "The Fall 2003 Anime Preview Guide" a bit less so.
All in all, I do not disagree that page needs cleanup. It certainly does, but an AfD is no substitute for page cleanup. Historyday01 (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the effort to gather sources (I did find a few of these in my own search, but also missed many of them). Apart from the Fandom article, which I'm not sure is admissible, these all seem to pass muster for reliability.
However, although I think these are all good sources to keep in mind for covering the critical reception of R.O.D. in general, my own opinion on the notability of the topic is mostly unchanged. There's a handful of these I'd see as being useful to flesh out the article alongside sources that address the character of Yomiko Readman more directly, but I'm not sure those exist, and in general these look to all be using her only as either as an example (of cosplay, stereotype, or anime protagonists) without directly addressing her as the main topic, or else only cover her over the course of covering the plot of the series generally, which one would naturally have to do when she's the lead character.
I still think the article would be best off merged and/or redirected, but I'll wait and see what opinions other editors have on these sources before I comment any further. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, I'm willing to personally wait to see what opinions editors have as well, but personally, I would not be opposed to merging or redirecting if other sources cannot be found, although I would prefer a weak keep at this time. Historyday01 (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Zuleika (November 22, 2018). "5 Classic Anime OVAs Worth Your Precious Time". Fandom. Archived from the original on April 19, 2025. Retrieved November 25, 2025.
  2. ^ Bolton, Christopher (2018). Interpreting Anime. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. p. 7. ISBN 9781452956848. Retrieved November 25, 2025.
  3. ^ Gibson, David (June 6, 2016). Overwatch: How A Hero is Mei'd. Archived from the original on October 13, 2023. Retrieved October 12, 2023 – via YouTube.
  4. ^ Espejo, Erica Victoria (2025). The Fangirl Diaries: Finding Community in Anime Fandom of the '90s and '00s. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland. p. 145. ISBN 9781476654904. Retrieved November 25, 2025.
  • Delete – Protagonist of an irrelevant anime series. Fails in WP:MILL. Svartner (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion seems unnecessarily harsh and it eliminates all the work that people have put in the article at this point. All that editing history is eliminated. This is why I tend to almost always oppose deletion. Also, the series was not "irrelevant." At the very least, a redirect as the OP proposed is a better option. I still maintain a weak keep on the proviso that good sources exist. Historyday01 (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the article shouldn't be straight out deleted, I'm only saying I think it should be redirected. The series itself looks to be notable. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my thought as well. The series certainly is notable, but I do think due to the number of years ago this was and the fact that the series isn't streaming anywhere (as far as I'm aware), that may have reduced the number of articles on Readman. That's just my guess on that part. Historyday01 (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article is very bad, yes. Most of it is fancrufty plot summary, and 3 out of 4 sources in reception are weak. However, she is mentioned on ~10 pages of the cited academic book [2], and other sources presented above suggest there is enough to prove notability of this character. The article needs a major rewrite (shorten fancrufty plot summary, expand with reliable sources analyzing her character...), but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's my thought on it as well. The page certainly needs work. I've seen other character pages like this before, so having a page like this is not unusual, unfortunately. Like always, it depends on who works on it, and how much time they put into updating it. Historyday01 (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of supplementary Doctor Who episodes

[edit]
List of supplementary Doctor Who episodes (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 list of "supplementary" Doctor Who episodes; the problem with this list is that the scope it's defining just... doesn't exist. This list includes things ranging from official "minisodes" to unrelated films produced in the 1960s to various spin-off material pieces from throughout the years in a way that official sources do not actually define as being a unified group. The grouping of these subjects together is entirely original research and any sources are discussing only individual entries without any information pertaining to how they connect to the other entries as a group.

Per WP:LISTN these lists need sourcing as a group to be notable but that neither that sourcing nor that grouping exists. A source search BEFORE yields nothing for the concept of "supplementary episodes" and any other search time I try yields nothing that indicates this grouping is notable, even trimmed down; even the "minisodes" mentioned above lack group notability. This list is simply non-notable and original research and should be deleted. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a very confusing proposal for deletion. Per LISTN, the claim that "these lists need sourcing as a group" is blatantly false; quoting it, that is "[o]ne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable". Indeed: "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists", and "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." "Supplementary" means "something additional; an extra". These includes additional, extra content released outside of the broadcast episodes. That's a very clear scope and definition. At this point, there is no clear policy or guideline cited that supports the deletion of this article. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex 21 this is still original research. No source defines this listing of episodes like this, and we follow the sources above any other definition. This inherently goes against what Wikipedia is not. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again: that is not a core policy or "must have" per NLIST. Kindly refer to the rest of my quotes regarding that particular guideline and discuss why you believe they do not apply here. The article itself very clearly defines what is included in that article. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Original research should not be in any article, and just because it's a list does not mean it is exempt from that. The article may define the scope, but do sources support that this scope actually exists? Your other arguments are just arguing why, hypothetically, sources wouldn't be needed to prove LISTN, but the entire argument of a hypothetical navigational list is called into question when the entire topic is backed on original research with no sources discussing it whatsoever. You haven't actually addressed why this original research isn't a problem, nor have you discussed the inherent sourcing issues with this. An article having a few sources may have an argument, but having no sources at all is far more questionable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the original research? You need to have an actual basis and proof of policy violation before you make baseless claims, and your disagreement on the definition of a word is not original research, thus you've presented... nothing. That's what this boils down to - you disagree on the use of the word "supplementary". Your entire argument is based on ignoring the rest of LISTN, which you are now aware does not apply here. Does the article need more sources? Yes. So tag it so. A lack of sources it not a reasoning for a deletion; you've tried deletion discussions like this before, to no avail. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A lack of sources is inherently a reason for deletion because if no sources exist, there's nothing to base an article on. I've done a detailed BEFORE and found nothing sourcing-wise that groups this topic together like this, nor anything that even discusses this topic period. I've said this multiple times above. If the sources don't exist we can't simply tag it as needing more sources and moving on, because that kind of improvement is unlikely to ever happen or even be possible. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the content in detail, I can agree that it's extended to far beyond what's necessary, but there's still relevant conntent here. Thoughts on my proposal below? The article used to only list actual supplemental episodes in 2021, before it was fancrufted out of proportion by one anon. -- Alex_21 TALK 21:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alex 21, commenting on @Pokelego999 'trying this before to no avail' is a borderline violation of WP:FOC. PL is a respectable editor and the focus should be on content and not conduct.
WP:LISTN states the following: 'One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.' Emphasis here on the 'group or set' being documented, the latter sentence is referring to individual list entries, not the group as a whole, which still requires coverage from reliable sources. In this case, none of the sourcing in this list article, which relies on WP:BLOGS and WP:TUMBLR, among others, refer to "supplementary" Doctor Who episodes as "supplementary". For this reason I agree entirely with PL and !vote to delete the article. 11WB (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is noted, thanks for the ping. I have already discussed LISTN in detail, to the entire extent of the guideline, and I do not feel the need to do so again. If you disagree with my conduct, you are welcome to tell me so at my talk page, so you can focus on the content here rather than conduct. -- Alex_21 TALK 02:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I get what this list is trying to do. It wants to catch all the Dr. Who episodes and television films that don't fit neatly into the other lists. In that respect it is acting like a WP:Navigation page. On the other hand I get the criticism of the nominator, and we really should have a better source based way of organizing and defining the list. On balance, absent another way of navigating to these pages, I think the loss of this list as navigational tool would be bad. We do need an index for these episodes for navigational purposes and that is what this list currently does for us. So keep, but only for that reason.4meter4 (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge entries into relevant season articles: I struggle to see the organisational benefit of this list outside their main articles. The scope currently is wildly expansive, including mini-episodes, trailers, interstitial scenes and character crossovers, the Cushing films for some reason (which are neither episodes or supplementary by any measure), even BBC One idents(!). Clearly that scope could be refined and isn't cause for deletion in itself, but it does represent the wider issue that this categorisation isn't clear or significant, or helpful to Wikipedia readers. As long as all its "episodes" are mentioned in the relevant main articles, it's surplus to requirements. U-Mos (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd absolutely support removing content like the films, trailers and idents, they aren't needed here. I remember when this article used to literally list just the supplementary minisodes and episode-related content, then it was expanded unnecessarily by anon's. This is what the article used to look like before a singular anon made 240+ consecutive edits in October 2021 to the article (and then another 100+) - I support restoring this version. That way, the scope is restored to being defined as content released to accompany and supplement episodes. Thoughts? -- Alex_21 TALK 21:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'd support restoring to that version in the event the article is kept, I still favour merge and delete. U-Mos (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair enough. I'd say there's also nothing stopping anyone from restoring that version at the moment. -- Alex_21 TALK 22:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be unopposed to restoring it should this be kept, but I'm only going to change to a Keep vote myself if the minisodes can be found to be independently notable of the wider series, otherwise I favor U-Mos's proposal. I did a search for minisodes by themselves and found little covering them as a set, and I feel navigationally it makes more sense to organize them with their respective series articles than as they are now. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, fair enough. I'll go through soon and start removing the unsourced trivia/fancruft. As you said, a lack of sources is inherently a reason for deletion because if no sources exist, so there's no need to wait. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demon's Lair

[edit]
Demon's Lair (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)

I'm working on the unreferenced articles backlog. I can't find any sources for this older tabletop RPG. It's possible that there's coverage in specialist media that isn't online, but I can't find anything even referencing it on the Internet Archive database either. Unless proper sourcing can be found, this looks to be a WP:GNG failure. SilverserenC 00:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think any of those counts as reliable sources. I saw them in my search and I don't see anything on why they'd count as proper specialist media with a reputation for reliability. Especially if they're made by a single person, thus violating WP:SPS. SilverserenC 21:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources have been added since the article has been nominated for deletion, unreferenced stuff has been removed.--Cyfal (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cyfal, can you explain the significant coverage shown to meet the WP:GNG? The only source that is actual coverage and not some form of database is The Forge. Which appears to be an internet forum group. So why would it meet our requirements for what constitutes a reliable source? In addition to that, it's only a singular source of coverage and more than a single source is needed to meet the GNG. SilverserenC 05:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Cyfal. Guinness323 (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same questions to you, Guinness323, as I just stated above. SilverserenC 05:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can Silver seren's questions about the sources be answered please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I agree that I cannot see any sign that The Forge meets our standards to be considered a reliable source. There is no indication of editorial review or a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The fact that the author of this particular piece was the creator and moderator of the site makes this firmly a self-published source. You could maybe try to make the case that Ron Edwards qualifies as an WP:EXPERTSPS, but I'm fairly dubious that he is an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. And regardless, as Silver seren has pointed out, even in the best case that would still only be one source — we need multiple to meet GNG. MCE89 (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if The Forge was determined to be a reliable source (and MCE89 has a very strong argument as to why it is not), that is still a single source. Since no other significant coverage in reliable sources have been found, it fails the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Science_fiction_and_fantasy&oldid=1325946503"