Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Science fiction or fantasy. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Science fiction and fantasy|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Science fiction or fantasy. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Science fiction and fantasy

Nahida (Genshin Impact)

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

Fails WP:GNG - while the article is WP:REFBOMBed fairly heavily, there is only trivial coverage and unreliable sources. Multiple editors have noted its failure of GNG, but it was moved into mainspace anyway while disregarding the advice, so I am forced to create an AfD for it to determine the way forward. List of Genshin Impact characters is a potential WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is this, which appears to be SIGCOV. There is also this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not waste peoples' time throwing out random sources where the name pops up. Explain what exactly about each source demonstrates significant coverage, especially since they are in different languages and not easily understandable. The first source appears to be about "translation techniques" and only uses the character as a random example? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about the first source, it doesn't look very usable. I haven't had the opportunity to look at the second source in detail, but it at least looks promising. Gommeh 📖/🎮 11:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just used the ChatGPT to help me read through the second journal. It seems to not have character-design analysis at all for Nahida. Quote ChatGPT: The piece titled “Artificial Intelligence Represented in Genshin Impact, Regulatory Initiatives, and Algorithmic Literacy” uses Genshin Impact’s Sumeru/Akasha arc as a case study to think about real-world AI issues. However, this article uses Nahida’s role as a metaphor for promoting algorithmic literacy and resisting blind dependence on data systems. This feels tricky. If we are to use this source in the article, I can't imagine what the Reception will be like -- though indeed "usable." SuperGrey (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ChatGPT conversation. The article is too long to get a word-to-word translation from ChatGPT, so this is as far as I can get. SuperGrey (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I agree that this page should stay in Draft namespace, GNG talks about its potential, not its current state. We were just talking about the RS problem in the talk page, and I found these two sources: Youxi Tuoluo and Final Weapon. The reliability of both sources is currently being discussed in zhwiki and our source discussion page. Therefore, I suggested that we could wait till clearer source evaluations are established -- but alas, @Zxcvbnm probably did not notice the discussion thread in the talk page. SuperGrey (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately I did miss that. However, I believe that is fairly moot with regards to this article, as the Final Weapon source is trivial coverage regardless, and is largely about the more overarching plot of the DLC/expansion/patch/etc. than the character of Nahida herself. It seems the other source is essentially the same, with only trivial coverage of the character. Therefore, whether or not it is considered reliable, it shouldn't matter for the purposes of this discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the other source is essentially the same, with only trivial coverage of the character. -- You need to READ the source, whether through Google Translate or some AI translators. I personally find the Youxi Tuoluo article to be largely focused on Nahida's character design. SuperGrey (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did read it, but it seems like a review of the new story/expansion at large, discussing the character of Nahida in an incidental manner while doing so. I'm not sure it rises to the level of SIGCOV within that summary. Assuming people do believe that it does, it's still just one source out of multiple ones needed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree your point, though SIGCOV looks good enough for Chinese game media like Youxi Tuoluo. They rarely write article dedicated to fictional character only, as they (the good ones) care more about the real-world perspective than English media do.

Here is the third round source search:

Game Daily. A marginally reliable source, so not for GNG, though it might be useful in the article.
Youxi Putao. A generally reliable source, yet the article itself talks about lots of stuff, while Nahida is just a small portion of it. Might be SIGCOV, but that's even more up-to-debate than the Youxi Tuoluo article.

And three more passing mentions that might be useful for the article: Youxi Putao, Youxi Putao, Jinghe.

Heck, why not just write an article about Sumeru instead? My three source hunts have already proven that Sumeru is GNG. We can even think of one possible solution to be redirecting Nahida (Genshin Impact) to a section inside Sumeru (Genshin Impact). SuperGrey (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

zh:须弥 (原神) is translation-worthy if anyone decides to write Sumeru (Genshin Impact). SuperGrey (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get on it then. As a Genshin fan I think it's about time I write a draft about it. I've gone ahead and done that at Draft:Sumeru (Genshin Impact). Gommeh 📖/🎮 13:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Youxi Tuoluo source is definitely useable, either in an article about Nahida (though maybe not to demonstrate notability) or in one about Sumeru as a whole. I found it quite informative and reliable. Gommeh 📖/🎮 14:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Singapore. jolielover♥talk 10:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where on-wiki was this discussed beforehand? Wherever it was, I must have missed it. Gommeh 📖/🎮 13:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of the Bane

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

I'm going through The Sarah Jane Adventures serials right now to figure out the sourcing on them, and this serial is something I wanted to discuss more thoroughly given it's currently a GA (Albeit a very old one- 2008 is ancient in GA terms). From a search, even back to the time period when it was airing, I cannot find a single review on the topic. Beyond that, there's some decent analysis in [1] this book, but that's about all. Any other mentions of the serial are merely discussing the character of Sarah Jane Smith and mentioning her role and how she's characterized in this, and are not actually reviews or analysis of the serial itself. The current article only has viewing figures, and no reviews whatsoever, and a good chunk of it is unsourced. I do not believe there's enough to support a whole article here given the bulk of this article is plot summary and what little real world info that exists is minimal. I'd suggest a redirect to List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials as an AtD, since there is a valid place for this redirect to point for the time being. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures – The article on “Invasion of the Bane” may not meet WP:NTV for a standalone page. Episodes lacking independent notability should be covered in series or season articles. Merging preserves viewership and character introductions while addressing notability concerns.

Editor1769 22:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robotman (Robert Crane)

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

Yet another minor comic book character whose entry is just plot summary+list of appearances, and my WP:BEFORE yields nothing to help with WP:GNG. Suggest redirecting to the List of DC Comics characters#R per WP:ATD-R. Years of clean up and we likely still have over a hundred similar entry, pretty much every second comic book character I still click looks like this :( Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to List of DC Comics characters: R per WP:ATD. Oppose mere redirect. There's a decent amount of sourced content and the list currently does not include the character. There should be some information on the character transferred into the list. Probably not at the current level of detail; hence "selective".4meter4 (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of DC Comics characters: R per 4meter4 - The sources (both in article and found in searching) are not the greatest, and do not appear to be enough significant coverage to support an independent article. But the character does look to have enough that being included in a character list would be appropriate, and as they are not currently listed there that I can see, a light merge should be done to add them. Rorshacma (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: R in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. I have already set up a section for anyone called Robotman there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Superman (Earth-Two)

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

Nothing in this article, or my before, suggests that this niche version of Superman merits a stand-alone article. Plot summary, list of appearances, and that's it. WP:GNG fail. As for WP:ATD-R; he is not mentioned at List_of_DC_Comics_characters:_S (although adding a heading there would be easy). The best I see right now would be Alternative_versions_of_Superman#Golden_Age_1938-1950s. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alternative_versions_of_Superman#Golden_Age_1938-1950s per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the proposed page in the nom. I'm not sure of the notability of the target page, but for now it's definitely the best page for covering the information about this character. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the section in question at Alternative versions of Superman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE like how they should've saved the Earth-Two history of Joker on his page. How would one list an Earth-Two counterpart on the List of DC Comics characters page anyway? Though Val-Zod should be merged with List of DC Comics characters: V. --Rtkat3 (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pokelego999. A character article doesn't immediately require a split simply because they have been portrayed in multiple different ways. It's not clear to me that these are separately notable, and even then, this is a WP:NOPAGE situation where the differences can be briefly summarized. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Earth-Two characters

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

A list of non-notable characters, pure plot sourced to plot (comic books). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth-Two looks likely to end up in a redirect (target is not decided yet, maybe List of DC Multiverse worlds?), with maybe a bit of a merge. I am somewhat at a loss where to redirect/merge this lists of a characters (from what appears to be a non-notable setting). Lists of DC Comics characters? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into appropriate lists within Lists of DC Comics characters. Ugh… we should merge these into the DC comic character list pages… but there are many by alphabetical order so there isn’t a clean article to article merge. Not sure how to technically handle the attribution requirement in that context. What a nightmare. We might need to get help from admins at Wikipedia:Copyright problems to clarify how to go about this merge/split because following the normal process isn’t possible and I don’t know as if leaving a redirect is an option. 4meter4 (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any exclusive characters listed on that page to their respectful List of DC Comics characters pages in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE...especially the ones from the Earth 2 comics. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. I have no preference on the merge target. I agree that the lists could be better organized, but spinning them out into multiple non-notable list topics isn't the answer. This can be revisited through the editing process. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G.I. Robot

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

A character from DC Comics. A search yields largely plot summary or VALNET sources. I did find one solid Comicbook.com hit [2] but beyond that it's largely trivial mentions or the aforementioned plot summary and Valnet. There is very little in the way of WP:SIGCOV to satisfy a whole article split off the characters list for this character, especially given the character's general lack of appearances in the franchise. I'd suggest a redirect to the character's entry at List of DC Comics characters: G, where this information, albeit with a trimmed down plot summary, can be covered much more succinctly with other characters from the series. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and United States of America. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No reception/analysis, plot summary+list of appearances=fail of WP:GNG I fear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: G in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Piotrus. Fails WP:NOT and WP:GNG without significant reliable reception. I'd have no objection if someone tried to WP:PRESERVE some of the WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs with a slight merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who parodies

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who in popular culture, this list is also WP:INDISCRIMINATE and is completely unsourced. I also think this fails WP:NLIST. Any possibility of an article covering this should be in an article called "Cultural impact of Doctor Who" or similar. jolielover♥talk 12:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Popular culture, Lists, and United Kingdom. jolielover♥talk 12:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing much to retain here. Segaton (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Procedural) keep All these questions where discussed in the lengthy deletion discussion of just a few months ago, and the nomination does not address any of the arguments there, or the improvements made, or the secondary sources raised in the discussion or listed on the talk page. So it seems to me to be a renomination despite nothing having changed. The problem with WP:INDISCRIMINATE has been solved by trimming to examples with are notable (making a lack of references mostly irrelevant, as the blue-linked articles at the target would have those references) or referenced by a secondary source. The idea to rearrange this to be a broader Cultural impact of Doctor Who article is an editorial decision which should have been raised at the talk page or boldly attempted rather than going through the WP:Deletion process. Daranios (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a renomination four months after a "no consensus" close warrants a procedural close. TompaDompa (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not the renomination itself I am concerned about, but the fact that arguments of the previous discussions have neither been acknowledged, nor has new information been presented. We are not supposed to renominate until we get the result we want. There should be a reason given why it is warranted to invest more of the editors' time now after this has been discussed for no less than four weeks not so long ago. But anyways, situation has already been changed since this nomination thanks to Rublamb, so that question has been kind of superseeded. So I guess that turns my procedural keep into a keep, based on some issues having been addressed through editing and others I've commented on here and last time. Daranios (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:HEY. The article now has sources, including several that discuss the topic as a whole, satisfying notability for a stand-alone list. There are enough sources to demonstrate that this article could be expanded and improved in the future, with discussion about the various parodies. It also serves as a directory of sorts for various articles in Wikipedia, since there is not a category for Doctor Who parodies. Mergerd into Cultural impact of Doctor Who is not advised at this time, as that article needs sources and pruning down to notable mentions; this article is the stronger of the two. 16:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC) Rublamb (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should be kept - On the one hand, Doctor Who is a major TV series that has had cultural impact on people in the United Kingdom and therefore has produced multiple parodies. On the other hand, I would prefer to first see an article in general on the Cultural impact of the series as mentioned by TompaDompa. In light of there not being an existing article on the cultural impact, I think it is important to maintain this article. I do think that the list itself merits keeping on its own since there is such a multitude of parodies and mentions in popular culture. MelikaShokoufandeh (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per last AfD. There is little in the way of overarching coverage of parodies, which is required of Wikipedia:LISTN. Yes, we can verify individual parodies exist, but there's little discussing the entire topic, which we need. There's only one source that really provides SIGCOV of this, and one source really isn't enough in this case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two books and two websites. Even though all are not yet used in the article, that is enough to meet WP:GNG. Rublamb (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rublamb which sources are you discussing? I only saw the one major SIGCOV piece when I checked, but I may have missed the sources you are discussing in there. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are either used in the article, are used but also have more info that can be added, or are from the further reading section,

Booth, Paul. Playing Fans: Negotiating Fandom and Media in the Digital Age. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2017. p. 102–104. ISBN 9781609383190.
Valdron, D. G. A Pirate's History of Doctor Who: the unauthorized stories. Fossil Cove Press, 1990. pp. 170–171. . ISBN 978-1-990860-24-9
Jowett, Lorna. "Chapter : Unruly Divergence: Parody and Comedy" in Dancing with the Doctor: Dimensions of Gender in the *Doctor Who Universe. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017. ISBN 978-1-78672-146-4
Hyland, Rachel (15 November 2013). "Classic Doctor Who: Parodies". Reactor. Tor Books. Retrieved 20 August 2025.

These are also articles that have some coverage:

Rouner, Jef. "Top 10 Doctor Who Parody Videos". Houston Press. Retrieved 20 August 2025.
Hyde, Eliza (21 June 2022). "Doctor Who: 10 Funny Parodies And Sketches". Game Rant. Retrieved 20 August 2025.

Rublamb (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rublamb I wouldn't consider the Game Rant source SIGCOV per Wikipedia:VALNET, but I do have to admit the other sources scrape together just enough for me to be confident that this subject does have some notability. Willing to strike my previous vote and go Weak Keep on this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been improved now and the sources above show clear GNG. It is a notable topic and should be kept. I also think it is too large to be merged onto the main Doctor Who articles. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who in popular culture

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

An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that just lists every single time that Doctor Who has been referenced in another creative work, no matter how small. While Doctor Who has had an impact on culture, this information is already soundly covered at the Doctor Who article, and at present, this list is only CRUFT that fails WP:LISTN and INDISCRIMINATE. The sources I can find in a search are either citing Doctor Who itself as an example of a particular subject in popular culture (For instance, such as citing examples of minotaurs in popular culture, with Doctor Who as an example of another fictional depiction of a minotaur), or are discussing Doctor Who's impact on popular culture, not popular culture references to Doctor Who like what is in the scope of this list. Currently fails notability at present, and should be deleted, since there is nothing salvageable here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:46, 20 August 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) 02:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We recently went through similar nonsense with Chimera in popular culture. These indiscriminate and often poorly-sourced lists of unimportant trivia are a bane to this site. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE, largely uncited, and trivial list. If someone wants to take this topic up though, I see some hope in a "Cultural impact of Doctor Who", that would merge together the dozen pointless and likewise trivial lists, and also has a stronger grounds to notability. jolielover♥talk 12:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolielover this is unrelated to the wider AfD discussion, just want to clarify, which lists are you talking about? I'll see if I can take a look at them to see if any of them are salvageable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nothing much to retain here. Segaton (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to ~~List of DC Universe locations~~List of DC Multiverse worlds without prejudice against selective merge. Owen× ☎ 13:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earth-Three

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

Similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth-Two I just nominated for discussiong. Again, nothing in the article, nor my BEFORE, suggests this meets WP:GNG. We have a lengthy plot summary and list of appearances (as setting). Publication history section is mostly unreferenced and ORish. WP:ATD-R suggests List of DC Universe locations might work, although right now Earth-2 is not mentioned there as an entry (just as part of some other plot summaries). Multiverse (DC Comics) might offer another alternative for redirecting, or perhaps List of DC Multiverse worlds? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Besides missing WP:SIGCOV, there are large amounts of WP:OR here. I'm open on the redirect target. Multiverse (DC Comics) seems like a notable parent topic, and the other lists could still include an entry. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Multiverse worlds in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of DC Universe locations without prejudice against selective merge. Whether the target itself is notable or not is a question for its own AfD. Owen× ☎ 13:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earth-Two

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

Nothing in the article, nor my BEFORE, suggests this meets WP:GNG. We have a lengthy plot summary and list of appearances (as setting). Publication history section is mostly unreferenced and ORish. WP:ATD-R suggests List of DC Universe locations might work, although right now Earth-2 is not mentioned there as an entry (just as part of some other plot summaries). Multiverse (DC Comics) might offer another alternative for redirecting, or perhaps List of DC Multiverse worlds? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Besides failing the WP:GNG, this contains a lot of WP:OR. The Multiverse (DC Comics) would be a good parent article for an WP:ATD-R, with more coverage in reliable third party sources. No objection to mentioning at various lists too, such as List of DC Multiverse worlds or List of DC Universe locations (which also seem to overlap a lot). No strong feeling on what the main redirect could be. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Multiverse worlds in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Will the nominator also be going after the List of Earth-Two characters as well? --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rtkat3 Thanks, I will, now that I know if it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see a target that is actually notable enough to merit redirection. Both Multiverse (DC Comics) and List of DC Multiverse worlds appear to fail GNG, as does this article. Redirecting a non-notable page to another non-notable page doesn't help, so deletion is likely better. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Academic publisher Routledge has a whole book dedicated to the DC Multiverse, The Worlds of DC Comics. So it seems very unlikely that this topic fails WP:GNG. Daranios (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pete Tyler

AfDs for this article:

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

A side character in Doctor Who. The only real hits I can find on this guy that are semi-strong are reviews for Father's Day (Doctor Who); most hits for subsequent appearances are either brief, trivial mentions, or purely plot summary. The only semi-strong hit I found was this: [3], which not only is solely about his appearance in Father's Day, but is also just the character being used as an example in the setup to the book's larger point. The character himself is not the subject of discussion here, and even if you did consider this WP:SIGCOV, this is the only strong hit I could find that does not fall into one of the other pratfalls above. Given the bulk of the coverage relates to Pete's role in Father's Day, per WP:NOPAGE, and the fact there's not much SIGCOV for his subsequent appearances, I'd suggest an AtD redirect to Father's Day, as that article is likely going to be the most helpful for understanding who the character is, and subsequent appearances of the character are inherently variations of the one who appeared in that episode. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What pure plot summary RS'es did you find? Remember, plot summaries are transformative and valid secondary sources per WP:PSTS. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, Who Is the Doctor: The Unofficial Guide to Doctor Who: The New Series has one longish sentence of commentary on the character outside of his appearance in "Father's Day", which might be added that episode but would not be a great fit. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's actually already in the article. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge Daranios (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC): In my view we do have a non-stubby article with a reasonable amount development and reception, so I see the minium for notability fulfilled and based on the WP:NOTPAPER I don't see a problem with some duplication with regard to Father's Day (Doctor Who). On the other hand a separate article on the character accommodates his less prominent appearances outside that episode. Still, there is overlap and it's not a very long reception, so I am not strongly opposed to a merge to Father's Day (Doctor Who) either. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Sourcing is limited but not non-existent and as a recurring character there is a downside to redirecting to his main appearance. On balance I think that keeping the article is better for the encyclopedia than redirecting it. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try one more relisting before considering closing this as "No consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Father's Day (Doctor Who). The majority of the article is written in an in-universe style and what real world, not in-universe sources exist can be moved to the article about the main episode. The subsequent appearances of alternate versions of the character can in fact be mentioned in that episode as we don't have a no spoilers policy (for better and for worse). --Mpen320 (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. There are other books with non-trivial analysis of the character. For example see MacRury, Iain; Rustin, Michael (2018). The Inner World of Doctor Who: Psychoanalytic Reflections in Time and Space. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780429921094. This book discusses Pete Tyler on pages 5, 7, 24-29, 33-34, and 37. There's some character analysis in this journal article. If you look in google books and google scholar you can find more. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 The first source is entirely an analysis of Father's Day, which is the issue presented in the nom. The issue isn't that coverage exists, but that it's entirely a subset of coverage about Father's Day, failing Wikipedia:NOPAGE given major subject overlap and the fact that both subjects inherently bolster each other with their coverage together. Do you have the text present in the second article? I can't access it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this, but a relist was requested, which I am happy to undertake. My original closing comment below.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my original closing comment: The result was merge to Father's Day (Doctor Who). The arguments for keep are somewhat ambivalent on retention as a standalone page, but there is no consensus for delete. There are reliable sources presented which indicate that the character and specific episode do feature sufficiently to satisfy notability (although there is concern that this does not satisfy both separately). Given this and given most discussants acknowledge WP:ATD, merge appears the rough consensus. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We need past participants at this AFD to comment on a merge to achieve WP:CONSENSUS. Is there support for an WP:ATD? I am personally neutral on this. I think there is enough independent coverage of the character to support a standalone article and that an ATD isn't necessary. However, I can see how editorially it might make sense to cover this at Father's Day (Doctor Who). So... I neither support or oppose a merge. I would like to hear from the editors actively writing in this area on how they would like to see this topic covered. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 to clarify, do you mean those who already participated in this AfD, or those who work in the Doctor Who topic area? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well both really. Of course any other editors popping in are welcome to comment too.4meter4 (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose then: @Daranios @Eluchil404 @Mpen320 do you all feel swayed in your votes or do you wish to stick to your guns? We need to determine some form of rough consensus, keep, merge, or not, so we should determine some form of compromise here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Father's Day (Doctor Who). Given I'm no longer a closer and can avoid all concerns with supervoting, looking closely through the sourcing, this unfortunately is WP:FANCRUFT, that is WP:NOT. In the article at present, there are only three sources that can be considered non-primary and independent, all of which are the barest of mentions. What's in the SFX article that is not summary of the story line, is more about the actor's contribution to the role, rather than the significance of the role itself. The Radio Times review where the character is mentioned is about the actor's contribution to the episode, rather than anything specific about the character. The Burk text has a sentence that simply notes that he was loved in another episode and is more a comment on the episode being discussed than an assessment of the character. The Ian MacRury book ("This book discusses Pete Tyler on pages 5, 7, 24-29, 33-34, and 37") is not available via Google Books (to me at least), it simply shows the index page which gives those pages. Searching for "Farther's Day" appears to show that references to those pages align with chapter 2 ("Fathers and daughters: Father’s Day and The Parting of the Ways") of the book and are far more about the characther Rose Tyler and her relationship with the Doctor. The Wikipedia Library (via Project Muse) doesn't seem to give me access to the Science Fiction Film and Television article, but given the article's title ("Rose Tyler: The ethics of care and the limit of agency") is it clearly primarily about a different character and there's nothing of what I can see that would indicate the article will contain much more than identifying the relationship between the characters. Thus, we have reliable sourcing which supports material for Shaun Dingwall, the Father's Day episode and material regarding the paternal relationship of one of the main characters, but I cannot see sourcing which supports a stand alone page for this character. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I remain torn. The level of coverage is sufficient to support a redirect/merge but is minimal for a standalone alone article. However, given that he is featured in more than one episode and that there is no properly formatted general character list, I remain of the opinion that a separate article (even if reduced to a stub) is better for the encyclopedia in this case. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect, per WP:ATD. I see some emerging WP:CONSENSUS for a merge between the redirect and keep !votes. Pokelego999 is very active in this area and I trust their analysis of the sources. How much to merge or duplicate can be addressed through editing after the AFD. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contentwise I have very much the same feelings Eluchil404 has expressed just above. But following Shooterwalker's suggestion to rethink with regard to consensus formation and agreeing with their assessment of Pokelego999's track record I am switching to keep or merge. If a merge to Father's Day (Doctor Who) should be the closing result, I just ask that a reference to other appearances of the character outside of that episode be incorporated somehow - so that anyone following the redirect on the character will be pointed to what else there may be on the character beyond that episode. Daranios (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Perhaps I could include a reference that the character appears in subsequent episodes of the show (I.e, something like "A version of Pete Tyler from a parallel universe appears in the following season's episodes...)? Should handle that concern adequately. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions

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