Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy

Negative Zone

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

Fails WP:GNG, and is pure plotcruft without a claim to any significance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:15, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:15, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Stargate: Extinction

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

Wish to restore the long-standing redirect to Stargate Atlantis#Cancellation and future as the recent recreation of the article fails scrutiny on multiple grounds of policy and guidelines.

Primarily it still fails under the initial reason it was redirected in 2010, namely that under our film notability guidelines (which apply as it's an unproduced direct to DVD film) it fails the requirements of WP:NFF in that it never entered into production (failing criteria 2), with the guidelines stating further that "films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles".

Beyond this there are also the fact the article contents fail to be established in reliable sources, instead it is predominantly sourced to a Stargate fansite (GateWorld) and the personal blog of one of the producers, meaning it also fails under WP:V.

Therefore the redirect should be restored at the previous location, which already provides a suitably thorough documentation of the never-produced film. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll leave it to the closer, but given the unusual situation this AfD request has arisen from (namely, functioning as a challenge under WP:ONUS) I believe unless there's positive consensus to retain the current article then the redirect should be restored even if there's no outcome either way as consensus has never been established for the contents of the "current" form of the page. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Film-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:29, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep. When the article was redirected in 2009 it only had 6 sources and had very little information. I've considerably expanded it to include plot details, background and pre-production information, much of which isn't in the primary Stargate Atlantis article and would make that article too long. Yes, the film didn't enter photography, but there are examples of wiki articles for films that did not enter photography, ie. Star Trek: Planet of the Titans.

Yes, interviews with the cast and crew of Stargate that were conducted by Gateworld are being used. Joseph Mallozzi as the writer of this is also a great resource to tap into, I'm unclear on why either would not be considered reliable. Much of what has been posted by Mallozzi and Gateworld has then been picked up and quoted by Syfy and other outlets, but I've stuck with the original source.

The article also uses other sources: chicagonow.com, deadline.com, dialthegate.com, fromthedesk.org, hollywoodreporter.com, mgm.mediaroom.com moviehole.net, movieweb.com, multichannel.com, nexttv.com, scifi.com, scifiwire.com, syfy.com, tvdeathray.com, variety.com. Mehehehea (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I've actually gone and broken down every source you've used. Of the 56 cites on the page at the time of writing:

21 are from Joseph Mallozzi's personal blog (which is not an appropriate source as it's a WP:SPS, many of which involve claims about other living people which immediately breaks policy WP:V).
18 are from GateWorld, a Stargate fan site whose reliability has been found to not be acceptable per several old discussions at WP:RSN (,,,).
5 are from various incarnations of the Sci-Fi Channel's own websites (WP:PRSOURCE).
1 is from Dial the Gate, a Stargate fan podcast (so would also struggle in terms of reliability).
1 is from MGM who at the time owned the franchise (WP:PRSOURCE).

So that's a total of 46 cites (82% of total) being non-independent, inappropriate sources.

The remaining 10 can be broken down into 3 good reliable source cites (Variety, Deadline Hollywood, Hollywood Reporter), 1 local newspaper (Chicago Now), and the rest are a smattering of seemingly questionable at best tv websites and blogs. The oddest one has to be "From the Desk", which is a Latter-Day Saints religious blog being used as a source for Stargate.

Many of the website names you've listed as examples of "other sources" also look to be the same websites. For instance "nexttv.com" is "multichannel.com", and "scifi.com", "syfy.com", and "scfiwire.com" are all part of the same Sci-Fi Channel core website. Which to me suggests you're simply googling for any and all results and citing them without really checking them.

Also, I would suggest you check WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Another article that should probably be removed under guidelines isn't a reason why this one shouldn't be removed per the failing guidelines. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Haunted vehicles

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

Seems to be WP:SYNTH - it's not clear that this topic was discussed as a group by anyone or that it is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:03, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Paranormal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:03, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment, the scope is wrong. People definitely write about ghost trains and ghost ships as a group, and I think people also write about ghost cars as a group. (Okay, these are not great sources, but they indicate that the group as a whole is recognised as a grouping). The problem is that no one seems to expect to group together ships, trains and cars as "vehicles". For the purpose of this article, it would have been much better to interpret "vehicles" as being cars, buses, lorries, and suchlike. This would also deal with the problem that by starting with two "Types" that are merely links to other "proper" articles, this one starts out looking like a navigational list, and then turns into a list article of individual haunted vehicles but strung together into narrative text. And a third problem, it ends up with spacecraft without any hint of haunting about them (harbouring alien eggs is not the same as harbouring a ghost). I think one could make a case for a TNT-delete and start over, but a grouping "haunted motor-vehicles" is probably wikinotable. Elemimele (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The predecessor of this article was named Phantom vehicle (not the current insurance-related article meaning). It had an AfD in 2021 in which I also voted Keep and in which the vote was split Delete/Keep but ultimately chosen as Delete. 5Q5|^✉ 11:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Your rationale seems to have been non-policy-based previously, i.e. WP:ITSUSEFUL, and appears to be the same now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Naxos (film)

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

Unnotable film - no sources with significant coverage. SLIDD yap 05:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Ireland. SLIDD yap 05:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Film that hasn't been shown to meet notability requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. The subject film seemingly hasn't yet been released, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, hasn't (yet) been widely distributed or received multiple full-length reviews in GNG-worthy publications, hasn't received a major award, doesn't appear to be taught as a subject in a film-study program at an accredited university, and doesn't appear to meet any of the other criteria given in WP:NFILM. The sources in the article either don't mention the subject film at all, or only mention it trivially/in-passing. I can find no other sources which deal with the subject as a primary topic (only other passing mentions like this). The WP:COI and WP:LLM and related issues at play here do very little to help. At best this title could be WP:DRAFTIFIED until after it has actually been released. Personally I think it should be deleted. Guliolopez (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:57, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Godzilla the Ride: Great Clash

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

I propose merging to Godzilla (franchise) because of lack of WP:SIGCOV and WP:FAN. Ever since the article's publication there's been no improvements, from anyone or the publisher, who has recently been blocked indef. This is one of many 4D theme parks rides related to Godzilla and none of them have significant coverage to warrant independent notability for an article. Looking at the sources cited, a few have dead links, this is the best it's gonna get. Perhaps it's more prudent to merge it with the franchise article, which already briefly touches on the theme park rides. Armegon (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Visual arts. Armegon (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Suggest alternative merge to Seibu-en, the amusement park where this is a ride. Jahaza (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
I would support a merge but per my comment here, I agree with Jaheza re target. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge to whatever target – per nom FaviFake (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Godzilla the Ride: Giant Monsters Ultimate Battle

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

I propose merging to Godzilla (franchise) because lack of WP:SIGCOV and WP:FAN. It's been a while since the article was published and there's been no improvements from the user that published it (who was recently blocked indef) or from anyone else. The real reason? Lack of significant coverage to warrant independent notability for an article. This is one of many 4D theme parks rides related to Godzilla, all of them fail SIGCOV and don't really warrant their own articles. The Godzilla (franchise) briefly touches on these theme parks already, so its best to merge this article with that one. Armegon (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Visual arts. Armegon (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment. Wouldn't Seibu-en be a better target (the park this is located in)? I support a merge overall, but I think the target may merit further consideration. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Sure! I don't mind which article is settled on as long as a merge moves forward. Armegon (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge to whatever target – per nom FaviFake (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Kala (comics)

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

I propose redirecting to List of Marvel Comics characters: K because nothing in the article suggest she merits a stand-alone article per WP:GNG. Publication history mentions only the first appearance, there is no development, reception or analysis, just fancrufty bio and powers/abilities sections, aside from one footnote (for first apperance), all sources are primary (comics). This is wikia/fandom level entry. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Redirect per nom; the article is absolutely loaded with WP:FANCRUFT. Additionally, all but one of the sources are WP:PRIMARY, which means that the article fails the "multiple" requirement of GNG. I'm unable to find many sources discussing this character online. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 15:25, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: K in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete - Very minor character who has not had more than a handful of appearances. The entire article is just in-universe plot summary, and there are no actual secondary sources present in the article - even the DK Published book is an official Marvel licensed product making it Primary. Searches are not bringing up any significant coverage in reliable sources. Not every minor character that ever appeared in a few issues of comics need to be merged to the bloated character lists, and a character that has no coverage in non-primary sources is an example of one that should not be. Rorshacma (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: K per WP:PRESERVE as noted above, and since a redirect without copying any of the text would be pointless since it is currently a blank entry. BOZ (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Progression fantasy

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

This article currently seems to be largely based on unreliable blogs (reader's grotto, and Andrew Rowe - a non notable self-described author of "progression fantasy", who actually claims to have been involved in the coining/publicization of the term (not an independent source). I spent some time looking for more substantial sources about the genre, and it's pretty limited. A couple books are described by their authors as instances of it (), and there is a Bachelor's thesis that mentions the concept. There's a mention in an article in USA Today, which describes the genre as a "parent" of LitRPG. Otherwise, there's quite a lot of reddit threads (which, apparently, google considers 'news' these days) mentioning the concept.

But, fundamentally, that is the sum of coverage that I found. We have some unreliable blogs, some authors proposing their works as what they want to make a "new genre". It does seem to be sort of real, but equally does not seem to have attracted independent analysis as a genre. There's essentially one sentence in a reliable, independent source. That's not enough to establish notability, and not even enough to build an article on. Given the lack of coverage here, I would tend to favor deletion, but at the very least this should probably be merged or redirected elsewhere. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:09, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:09, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
comment re-reading a discussion that linked above (*facepalm*) I saw a user link a review published in the SFRA Review that does have a paragraph or so about the genre. Still, not really enough for a stand alone article imo. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Add a few sentences about it to LitRPG from the few RS we have then redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

TO those voting "merge" - there isn't much here reliably sourced to merge. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge: This term seems to be used, and it would be a shame not to provide an explanation to the users of Wikipedia. Sourcing is thin, tough, with mostly definition and examples. So covering this within another article based on WP:ATD is probably best. Scopewise List of genres, where it is already mentioned, seems best. I was wondering if this is too central a spot, but this scholarly article does just that, briefly covering it in a overview over all of literature. I assume from the definition that not all progression fantasy would fall under LitRPG, but if it is felt that that article best allows for a reasonable coverage of the topic, that's also fine with me. Daranios (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment. The term is used briefly here https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/vrmmorpg . I was digging into related concepts recently (disclaimer: writing that very article) and I feel this should be a notable concept, but it may also be that its a bit WP:TOOSOON, as this term is just entering the discourse. That said, I see 33 Google Scholar hits for it, and some GBooks/GNews hits. So WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES. Merging it is somewhat problematic, since I think that while all LitRPG is progression fantasy (because leveling up and gaining power through a system is a clear form of progression), not all prof fant is LitRPG (you can have intense power progression without blue boxes, stat sheets, or video game mechanics). I will need to look more into it; I concur with the nom that the current sourcing is weak, but I am not convinced lack of GNG has been sufficiently demonstrated. Or BEFORE - did the nom look at GS? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:08, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, naturally I looked at GScholar/GBooks before nomming the article. Pretty much all of the results except for those listed above either use the term in a different context (ie , ,), or are not reliable sources (). GBooks is much the same. Not sure if you're trying to be ironic but your link for THEREMAYBESOURCES is to an essay about exactly why that's an argument to avoid at AfD. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Eddie891 I know it's a weak argument (I created the very redirect I linked too), which is why I wasn't voting keep :P I just wanted to hear your view on the academic sources. Thanks, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:27, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but just because something redirects to something doesn't mean the target is the parent topic. The parent topic can be redirected from as well. For example if a band redirects to the one notable person in it. It's why we have {{R to subtopic}} as well as {{R from subtopic}}. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to LitRPG. The sourcing is too thin for a full article. On where to redirect: USA Today says it's the "parent genre" of LitRPG; CBR calls it "a cousin" to LitRPG; and SFE calls the two "adjacent concepts". Based on this I've added a couple of sentences to LitRPG, so it's now a plausible target. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
I think this would be a good outcome. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:50, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Redirect per Olivaw-Daneel. I think that's as good a target as any. Ideally there would be a small subsection for progression fantasy - maybe within the history section? That way it has a more clean redirect target to help show that they are different concepts. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirect per Olivaw-Daneel, due to the added paragraph in the related genres section. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Hero's journey, as they pretty much seem to describe the same thing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: While the definitions sound pretty similar - and there may be a problem in the phrasing there - I see the difference in the "emphasis on character development, progression in skill or abilities, and the attainment of greater power". Like, I would say, the Odyssey is a pretty good example of a hero's journey, but does not spend any time on describing how Odysseus gets more capable and attains new skills which help him overcome the next challenge. He already has his set of abilities before everything ever starts. (So, many progression fantasy stories may be hero's journeys, but not the other way round.) Daranios (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Huh. For some reason I thought that training was explicitly a part of the Hero's Journey, but I see our article doesn't say that (except for the more recent version, where it refers to a mentor). I don't retract it, though - as you say, many progression fantasies follow the archetype. Can you think of any offhand that don't? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: I am just learning about this from the article and the secondary sources, and I don't know the examples well enough, so, no, I would not have such an example at the moment. But I would like to a) expand, using the SFE defintion "Progression Fantasy refers to works emphasizing the systematic acquisition of power and skills", that the creators of the term seem to refer mostly to newer works where there specifically exists that emphasis. So Dragonball yes, but Star Wars no, because even though Luke undergoes training, but it's only one episode that's not specifically emphasized in the overall story, and there is no "systematic acquisition". b) More importantly there is no mention of progression fantasy yet at Hero's journey, so a pure redirect does not seem helpful to me. We could create/merge a section there as a closely related topic. But the secondary sources do not explicitely make the connection between progression fantasy and the hero's journey, so that would feel somewhat like WP:Original research. An implicit connection may be there, but it's not on a WP:SKYISBLUE level. And that problem exists neither at List of genres nor at LitRPG as a target. Daranios (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Bagan (kaiju)

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

I propose merging to Super Godzilla because at present, this article fails notability guidelines. This article contains only a brief developmental blurb on the character, nearly all of which is cited to unreliable fansites like Toho Kingdom. There is nothing pertaining to reception, just specifically the behind the scenes history of the character. A brief BEFORE yields nothing but Valnet articles (Which do not contribute to notability), unreliable sources, or brief trivial mentions. A few book sources seem to touch on Bagan's brief behind the scenes history, which could be merged into a blurb in his one significant appearance in Super Godzilla. At present these tidbits are worthwhile to be preserved, but in no way warrant a whole article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Video games, and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge. As usual, ping me is sources are found, but in the current state of article (no reception/analysis), I support redirect/merge.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. I disagree with the idea of merging the article to Super Godzilla. Bagan has had atleast two appearances aside from the SNES game. Furthermore, the development section of the article is still incomplete, as there exists sources used by wikizilla that further explore the behind-the-scenes history of the character, namely the brief consideration of including Bagan for a scrapped sequel to Yamato Takeru (ISBN 978-4-04-886119-9).

I accept that using the website Toho Kingdom was not the most reliable source I could use. I have since edited these sources out.

Furthermore, as a new Wikipedia user, I appreciate if I am given time to edit the article, as there are some things I wish to add if it helps to expand more on the character's appearance, backstory, etc. GranCarbonaria9 (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Super Godzilla, and that is being generous. An extremely non-notable fictional creature whose only "notable" appearance was the SNES game. The very few reliable sources that mention the creature are very trivial coverage, largely just brief mentions of it being proposed to appear in several unproduced films. Rorshacma (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
>only notable appearance

Didn't Bagan also appear in Godzilla Movie Studio Tour and Godziban? GranCarbonaria9 (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
@GranCarbonaria9 both of those lack much coverage in reliable sources, but even then just appearing in other spin-off media doesn't make a character notable. What matters is the coverage that discusses the impact of their appearances (Did Bagan get significant analysis or commentary from critics, scholars, journalists, etc for appearing in any of these properties? Was Bagan noted by them to be significant to the Godzilla franchise or elsewhere for any particular reason?) of which that coverage is sorely lacking (Even for Super Godzilla, Bagan's debut appearance). Simply being mentioned as existing isn't enough for an article, the character needs to have a verifiable impact as well, which Bagan is very much lacking in. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:20, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Jerry Ahern

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

The statements in this article are sourced to blogs and obituaries, or other self-published sources. Having checked online, I can't find any substantial coverage indicating notability. Though the book series he wrote has an article, it's questionable if it should, as it has a similar problem to this one. AaronNealLucas (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and United States of America. AaronNealLucas (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The nom needs to beef up their BEFORE skills and Google fu. In few seconds I found - bio in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. The article would benefit from utilizing this source, but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Firearms, Georgia (U.S. state), and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep Detonics was a significant (if small) company in the field of higher-end 1911-style pistols. Scoremasters still command high prices on the rare occasions they come up for sale. His role in that company is enough for a keep in my view. Intothat darkness 11:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think any of the replies so far have done a good job establishing that this articles meets notability standards. A single encyclopedia-style source isn't enough to establish notability. We really need at least 3 good sources to write an article. The fact that someone had a role at a significant company does not establish notability either; notability is not inherited between people and the organizations they are involved in.

AaronNealLucas (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep, reasonable claim to notability through WP:NAUTHOR/WP:GNG: based on the SFE entry (by itself an element of SIGCOV), there is also SIGCOV in Nuclear Holocausts: Atomic War in Fiction (pp.108-113; this book tells us that it "singles out the books in Jerry Ahern's Survivalist series as particularly influential" in the field of survivalist fiction). Then we also have a 1984 newspaper profile of Ahern and his wife, and coverage in more scholarly-type books (, , possibly in this reviewed book). That's certainly enough to build an article on. - Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:59, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Nuclear Holocausts only mentions his work in two sentences and does not mention him again. The book by Pike actually might qualify except for the fact that it cites Wikipedia's page for Jerry Ahern as a source for at least part of the content. The book by Shahram only name drops Ahern but adds no intellectual commentary on his work. That leaves a local newspaper article which may indeed be usable, if not considered to be WP:ROUTINE. AaronNealLucas (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy

Science fiction and fantasy

Negative Zone

Stargate: Extinction

Haunted vehicles

Naxos (film)

Godzilla the Ride: Great Clash

Godzilla the Ride: Giant Monsters Ultimate Battle

Kala (comics)

Progression fantasy

Bagan (kaiju)

Jerry Ahern

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks