Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contemporary fantasy

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary fantasy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The page fails WP:GNG. There are plenty of hits on Google/Google Scholar/JSTOR/Wikipedia Library, but most are unreliable or are an adjective modifying a noun. They do not show that "Contemporary fantasy" has a distinct identity. The Encyclopedia of Fantasy entry ([1]) is interesting but not a clear subgenre:

"By definition, a Contemporary Fantasy sets the mundanity of the present day in clear opposition to the fantasy premise. A Contemporary Fantasy is thus a Crosshatch […] or a Portal fantasy […] or a Gnostic Fantasy […] or a Fantasy of History […] or an Instauration Fantasy […] – or indeed any combination of these. [...] Many texts can be described simultaneously as Contemporary Fantasy and as Urban Fantasy."

Moreover, I don’t think it can pass GNG. If we use the (unsourced) definition on the page, it's meaningless; it says nothing about the text, only when it was written. What is the common ground between "The Bottle Imp", The Borrowers, The Garden of Sinners, and Harry Potter? It’s not a useful term.

People searching for "contemporary fantasy" are probably looking for fantasy stories set in the modern world, and Urban fantasy is the most common phrase for this per Google Ngrams [2], although Low fantasy has a slightly higher number of pageviews. So I think a redirect to Urban fantasy would be best. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. There is clearly consensus to keep it, and other editors found sources that I couldn't. Thanks for everyone's help. I'll close the discussion now. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs much more sourcing, and maybe a check if there is original research or not. But these are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. "It’s not a useful term" is a personal opinion which has no bearing if an article should be deleted. Also, it seems that John Clute and Brian Stableford disagree. I am strongly convinced that the article does NOT fail WP:GNG, because WP:GNG depends on the existence of sources, and both The Encyclopedia of Fantasy and The A to Z of Fantasy Literature have an entry on the subject. If these encyclopedias have an entry, so should Wikipedia as a general and specialized encyclopedia. In addition, there are many more secondary sources discussing the term, so it's certainly notable. The fact that it is a broad topic, which encompasses a number of sub-genres, does not make it any less encyclopedic. Neither does the fact that there is some overlap with Urban fantasy and Low fantasy. These are not synonyms. E.g. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is contemporary urban fantasy, while Shadowrun and the Discworld City Watch novels have been considered urban fantasy but are not contemporary fantasy. Also the first sentence as a definition is NOT meaningless. E.g. it allows us to say that Harry Potter is contemporary fantasy and The Lord of the Rings isn't, and this is independent of when they were written. Daranios (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Beyond the above sourcing, here's a source that contrasts the genre of contemporary fantasy with magical realism [3]. Here's a source explaining the difference and overlap with urban fantasy and more [4]

Cleanup of the article, such as deciding whether the article should only be about a genre or if it should be a broad concept article can be handled on the article talk page. Both articles would be valid, and it may be that this discussion ultimately leads to two such articles, or perhaps a BCA can have a substantial section for the genre. A merge would not be beneficial. —siroχo 19:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added these two sources to the article. —siroχo 20:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I think I'm up to 5 sources backing the general definition presented in the article, plus a few more related ones. I also added a talk page note about an overlapping but slightly different definition I've started running into, that will likely be worth giving DUE weight in the article. I won't make further updates regarding sourcing in this AFD, but may continue to improve the article. —siroχo 23:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above points, especially that both The Encyclopedia of Fantasy and The A to Z of Fantasy Literature have entries on this topic.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and thank the op for the courtesy ping). I think that if the experts at EoF think this merits a separate entry from urban fantasy,and if itis also covered in The A to Z of Fantasy Literature (for two paragraphs in a stand-alone entry, so I think SIGCOV is met), this meets GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Semi-related but editors interested in this AfD may also want to comment on recently proposed merger and a redirect or merger proposal: Talk:Sword_and_sorcery#Merge_proposal and Talk:Sword_and_planet#Proposed_redirect_to_planetary_romance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets notability standards DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2023 (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.