Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hard fantasy (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep after the rewrite. – sgeureka t•c 05:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hard fantasy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There seems to be no real explation of what "hard fantasy" is besides a derivative of hard science fiction that someone happened to think up one day. It's mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Fantasy, but only as a minor dicdef and doesn't appear to be discussed in other, reliable sources as much more than a mere dictionary definition, therefore this article fails WP:GNG though it would probably be fitting for Wiktionary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

*Redirect per Clarityfiend, perhaps add their sources at the target. I was not able to find enough sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG, but the subgenre exists and is discussed occasionally. With basic verfiability and with hard fantasy being is a plausible search term (50-100 page views per day), a redirect to where it is mentioned is warranted. For verifiable material, redirect is one preferred alternative to deletion per our policy WP:ATD. -- 20:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Fantasy. While there are a couple of references to the term and an entry in The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, IMO it's a WP:NEOLOGISM that hasn't caught on. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Yeah, I pretty much just agree with what the others had to say. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. This essay is, I think, reliable, but it is rather essayish. Those are less reliable IMHO, with being the worst. So the sources present are not great. But there are other sources. An entire book (through, granted, looks a bit suspicious, cover-wise, from a minor publisher, no citations, can't find much about the author. But for example  is solid, a definition in a reliable work. Some passing but nonetheless helpful mentions in . Another short def in . This is mentioned and possibly discussed at length at  (snippet view, not sure). One paragraph discussion in . An entre chapter (arguing this term is incorrect...) can be found in . I can cite more but that should be enough. WP:BEFORE fail, sadly, in all prior commenters (and the nom, with whom I often agree, but not this time). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I did come across that stuff in my WP:BEFORE, but I discounted them as too minor. I and the other commenters are not wrong, and I still do not believe this is notable even after your listing of "sources". And I'm not about to search the globe for a book that may or may not be reliable. The redirect can always be recreated if someone actually finds sources - but the onus is on the article creator, not the nominator of the AfD. Another problem is that hard fantasy has a different definition in many different books, and there is no single agreed upon definition. It's just a term people appear to use for their own purposes.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Since I think the topic is notable, I will try to improve it in the near future. - please take a look, I am not done yet (holidays...) but I've removed all the unreferenced OR, and added properly referenced content, including from the The Encyclopedia of Fantasy which has an entry on this (and I still need to go over the sources I listed above last week). This is clearly a notable topic, IMHO, and not in need of WP:TNT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relist for consideration of sources and improvement put forward after bulk of participation.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am done with my rewrite. I think the current article is clearly notable, unlike the OR mess that was nominated. But WP:TNT was not needed. PS. Closing admin should consider that the delete votes above where cast for the old version of the article and the editors who cast them where pinged about reviewing the new one but seem to have missed or ignored the ping. But the point is their votes are not about the current version of the article, but about the no-longer-existing old one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You ping did not work, at least for me. I came back after a change showed up on my watchlist. -- 22:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The addition of new sources establishes notability for this subject... — Hunter Kahn 10:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Changing my recommendation, as Piotrus has found more reliable sourcing, sufficient for a start-class article. Keep per WP:HEY, and nice work. — 18:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to the addition of new sources. Toughpigs (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Changing my vote due to new sources and new signs of notability. Thanks guys! Foxnpichu (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.