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

Great Intelligence

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

Genuinely surprised by the lack of coverage that exists for this character. I was hoping to improve his article, as its current Reception is primarily plucking smaller quotes and trivial mentions from larger episode reviews, but a search through News, Books, and Scholar yielded very little. All I found was plot summary of the character's appearances and trivial, scattered mentions that don't amount to SIGCOV. The few hits I found that were even close to significant- and indeed the only coverage in the current article that is- are about the Yeti, creations of the Intelligence who somehow have more actual tangible discussion than the Intelligence. This character just lacks any form of significant coverage to justify a whole article, and per NOPAGE, I'd support a redirect or merge to the Yeti article, as they are the subject most closely associated with the Intelligence and thus the best place to put information regarding the Intelligence's character. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:05, 3 May 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) 16:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some reception in the article; there is some more praising Ian McKellen's performance as Great Intelligence in news articles; and more commentary in such sources in relation to other individual appearances. There is something strewn throughout Steven Moffat’s Doctor Who 2012-2013, mostly plot summary but also some commentary (positive comparison with Fenric (Doctor Who), and specifically talking about how Moffat's version has decidedly little linkage to the yeti!); half a page at The Science of Doctor Who which includes commentary on the possible inspiration; and two pages as "The Psychic Papers: The Great Intelligence" in Who Is The Doctor 2: The Unofficial Guide to Doctor Who, again mostly plot summary, but also with commentary. So I did not see a lot of commentary in any one place, but enough of commentary in total to support a full article in the vein of WP:WHYN. And yes, all of this could be partitioned among the individual relevant episodes, the Yeti article and List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens#Great Intelligence. I just see no benefit in such a splitting up with regard to WP:NOPAGE. To the contrary WP:NOTPAPER seems to apply to me here. If push comes to shove I would prefer a merge to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens#Great Intelligence to deletion in the vein of WP:AtD, but prefer to keep the article. Daranios (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the reliability of the publisher of Steven Moffat’s Doctor Who 2012-2013, especially given it's advertised as being written "by fans" on a publisher whose website apparently hasn't been updated consistently since 2015 and has a non-functioning FAQ. Regardless, even if we take it as reliable, I'd argue it's largely moreso discussing the Yeti than the Intelligence. The cited statements describe the Yeti for being silly antagonists and theorize if it tied into why they didn't return with the Intelligence, while giving comparatively little depth to the Intelligence; just saying the Intelligence was similar to another antagonist without much further depth isn't what I'd call significant analysis.
Science is largely a summary of the Yeti more than it is the Intelligence, and its brief musings over origins seem more fit for developmental information, not Reception, which is needed here. The Psychic Papers has some pretty solid coverage on both halves, and it's a pretty good find, but the source largely discusses the Yeti and Intelligence in tandem, which doesn't debunk the NOPAGE criteria outlined in my nom.
What I'm largely failing to see, and why I made this nomination, is a lack of actual distinct SIGCOV of the Intelligence separate from the Yeti. If the Yeti and Intelligence are discussed entirely together, then NOPAGE very strongly applies given the shared overlap of both of their appearances, roles, and reception. In all the sources above, the Yeti take up a lot of coverage on the Intelligence, and arguably dwarf the Intelligence in comparative coverage despite being described in the same context. The shared coverage indicates to me that anyone looking for either of the pair would likely be looking for coverage on both of them, something better accomplished in one article where all the information can be contained together, than in two separate articles that are intrinsically tied to each other and require the other article to wholly understand. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just one comment: I agree withmusings over origins seem more fit for developmental information, not Reception, but not withwhich is needed here. For notability, we need a sufficient amount of coverage. Per WP:ALLPLOT, in addition to plot summary, coverage needs to includereal-world context. As examples of such context are listeddevelopment, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis. So reception is one valid topic here, developmental background another. Daranios (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions

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