Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of comic science fiction


 * 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 no consensus. Good points were made on both sides of the keep-delete spectrum: sources exist for turning this into a proper article; the existence of this list depends on the (not yet finalized) categories and parent articles; and that WP:TNT is the best option for this topic. – sgeureka t•c 11:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

List of comic science fiction

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced. Should the delete discussion end with "keep", this may be merged with comic science fiction. Kailash29792 (talk)  08:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep We don't delete things simply because they are unsourced, especially lists of obvious blue links, like this. Per WP:BEFORE, the onus is on the nominator to search for sources if that's the issue, "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability The minimum search expected is...".  There are certainly sources to be found such as Rob Grant's top 10 comic science fiction novels. Andrew D. (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with - Notability seems to be met as it's a major literary genre and the list topic could, in principle, satisfy Stand-alone lists as there is enough to demarcate between what is and isn't relevant, thus satisfying the Wikipedia is not a directory hurdle.  I agree that the sourcing could be improved, especially for the selection criteria, but I wouldn't say it's worthy of dynamite.    SITH   (talk)   11:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a valid list. Some items might require a reference.  No one would doubt that The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a comedy.  I look at the editorial reviews for at at amazon.com and I see them specifically mention how funny it is.  Its article begins with its opening sentence stating it is "a comedy science fiction".  If the main article linked to doesn't describe something as a comedy, then a reference should be found to keep that item on the list.  And if the main article does list that information but you sincerely doubt it to be accurate, post a link saying a reference is needed there.   D r e a m Focus  13:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep a useful list. As a stand alone list it makes sense. Lack of sources is never a deletion rationale per WP:NEXIST and WP:NOTCLEANUP. If I feel ambitious I add refs. Lightburst (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SALAT as too broad. I'm guessing that maybe 10% of all science fiction is comical, and this list encompasses all media. That's way too much. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete As a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. There is no distinct criteria for inclusion whatsoever and membership of the list appears highly subjective. For example, would Big Hero 6 really be considered "comic" or just lighthearted kids entertainment that includes goofy moments? Might be encyclopedic if totally rewritten or refactored, but I doubt that any of the keep voters here plan to so much as touch it with regards to fixing its systemic issues.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE can be remedied by adding stringent criteria, for example requiring entries to be sourced to, say, a reliable source saying in toto that it's "comic science fiction". ミラP 14:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - In its current form, the list seems completely subjective. As it's not a mainstream genre, I'd say the only way such a list is going to be viable is if there's a requirement for there to be a source that lists each series as such. TTN (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see a problem with a list like this being unsourced. If all the entries are blue links and all the articles identify them in that category then that's fine.  I don't see any shortage of sources discussing science fiction humour, The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy covers it from page 401 to 404.  Nor is "not a proper genre" any kind of argument for deletion; Science Fiction Film: A Critical Introduction discusses this issue pages 110 to 111 and draws a distinction (with examples) of the difference between a commedy science fiction film and science fiction with some humour elements (which addresses one other objection raised). The argument that the subject is too broad doesn't wash with me either.  The list is currently reasonably short (we have much longer lists than this one) and we still have the option to break it into separate pages by media. SpinningSpark 00:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep on the condition that each entry must have a reliable source saying in toto that it's "comic science fiction". ミラP 01:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - But the inclusion criteria doesn't match the description for comic science fiction. Sourcing doesn't need to be here as long as it is in the article. I don't think Quantum Leap belongs on the list. StrayBolt (talk) 06:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete There is not a tight enough definition to clearly say what does and does not belong here. Then there is the lack of sourcing showing this is a recognized group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - At least leaning that way right now. Here are the problems:
 * The largest section duplicates List of comic science fiction films
 * the list is original research. Unsourced, and none of the articles I've checked so far have sources calling the work "comic science fiction"
 * A search for '"comic science fiction" list' returns zero reliable sources, and lots based on Wikipedia (never a good sign)
 * It seems like this is one of many ways to write some combination of "science fiction and comedy"? even opening the search terms, basically all of the halfway decent sources I'm seeing are about films (which, again, already have a separate article).
 * We can take any two genres and create a list of movies at their intersection. That doesn't mean that sufficient reliable sources have written about that intersection across media to meet our standards for lists. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you look at the article by David Langford I linked above in the Greenwood Encyclopedia? If not, would you please take a look (use "humorous science fiction" as a search term to find it. It begins on page 401). Langford gives a wide ranging discussion explicitly naming numerous works. Also, his bibliography indicates that there are quite a few other reliable sources available. SpinningSpark 12:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The entry is on "humor", not a particular genre, and he even says "humor is not a distinct genre like science fiction or fantasy and mixes easily with many fictional modes." It would be a fine source to use if we have an article on humor and science fiction, but it would be original research to say that this source supports examples of a particular scifi genre. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that it is a genre, that is not a requirement for an article in any case. It certainly didn't stop Langford writing one.  I only claim that we have enough reliable sources to justify a Wikipedia article on the subject. And of course he doesn't need to title it "Humor in science fiction". He is writing in a science fiction encyclopedia so that is taken for granted. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The article on the subject this is based on calls it a subgenre. It's straightforwardly OR to say that an entry about humor in a scifi encyclopedia is about that genre. If it's really intended to be a "list of any media of any genre that sources say have some elements of comedy and science fiction"... that's a straightforward fail per WP:NOT and WP:SALAT. By the same logic, presumably any entry in that encyclopedic of scifi which lists examples could sustain a "list of any media that feature elements of [whatever] and science fiction"? &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If a respectable encyclopaedia of SF contains an article about some aspect such as humour then this is obviously prima facie evidence that this topic is both notable and encyclopaedic.  Such a topic is therefore valid here too. Andrew D. (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ... It's absurd to think that [specialist encyclopedia subject] + [heading in that specialist encyclopedia] = [appropriate list topic for Wikipedia]. Either this is a list about a genre, in which case this entry is not about that genre and contributes nothing, or we're just cobbling together two elements like "humor" and "science fiction" and then populating said list with absolutely anything that has "humor" and science fiction"? &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 03:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as article index per WP:LISTPURP, complementary to Category:Comic science fiction per WP:CLN. It should be obvious that if it is appropriate to include in the category (a structure which has existed since 2007), then it is appropriate for the list. "Overbreadth" could be dealt with by splitting into sublists by medium, time period, country of origin, etc. Note also there is a parent article at comic science fiction, which has not yet had any talk page discussion on the issue of inclusion, genre definition or recognition, etc. postdlf (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So presumably if that category were deleted, you would support deleting this? After all, none (or none that I've seen) of the articles in that category have sources saying it's in the "comic science fiction" genre, as is required for genres. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think in any event the fact we have a parallel category and a parent article means that all of this content should be discussed together, and not just raised for the first time in the AFD of a sublist. Particularly since you're really the only one so far who has clearly presented an argument that there are unfixable problems here, rather than just complaining about things that could potentially be fixed. postdlf (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: Now the parent article has rightly been renamed science fiction comedy. This list may be renamed to maintain consistency, whether it gets deleted or not. -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  15:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and Move to List of science fiction comedy works or something like that – There are sources that describe these works as "science fiction comedy". I added a few to the article. --- Coffee  and crumbs  05:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete way too broad, better handled as category. Artw (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.