Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The X-Files sources and analogues


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. No objection to starting again but can we just try using RS only next time Spartaz Humbug! 05:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The X-Files sources and analogues

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is a very poorly referenced article (many if not most of the sources are unreliable - homepages, fanpages, UFO fan sites, etc.). Even if the topic is notable, WP:TNT is likely in order - and it's not like the article, nor my BEFORE, even confirm this meets WP:GNG in the first place. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting as we have editors advocating Deletion, Redirection/Merging and Draftification. Need some more opinions to come to a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Meh... It's a very bad article but a very good topic for an article -- Like the Twilight Zone,  Star Trek (1966), and Star Wars,  the show was famous for recycling prior works.  The article should aspire to be Star Wars sources and analogues, and RSes exist to get it there.  The WP:TNT sentiment is understandable, but throwing out the existing 'codebase' and starting from scratch is rarely the best course of action.   It's a good topic, we should have an article on that topic.  Feoffer (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Feoffer ATD/SOFTDELETE compromise might be redirect while preserving history, but to where? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The X-Files would be obvious choice, but Milton William Cooper has a good claim. Feoffer (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that the possibility exists to have an article on this subject, but this one is so poorly put together that I also agree that it would be easier to start over than to try and fix this version. I also find the title to be really clunky and nonspecific, so a better title could be part of any future redo. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Merge. This information belongs as a section in The X-Files (franchise) article. There is nothing spectacularly unique about the background of the The X-Files. It is just The F.B.I. (TV series) (9 seasons, 1965-74) with a paranormal/horror plot. Examples of other articles with Sources sections: Beowulf, Dream of the Rood, The Canterbury Tales, The Squire (Canterbury Tales), The Taming of the Shrew, Excalibur etc. Star Wars is different because of President Reagan's usage of the term and subsequently the news media.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 11:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify the article is notable and there is a possibility to have an article on this subject. However the article is in a poor state and so I think that it should be moved to the draftspace until it has been sufficiently improved. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - The fictional and historical elements that inspired and influenced the X-Files is already covered at The X-Files, which contains the same information that is present here, only its actually being supported by reliable sources over there. Much of the information here is either unsourced, or based on unreliable fansites, so there is nothing that should be merged over. I am not seeing any reason for the topic to actually be split out into a separate article when, again, it is already adequately covered at the main article on the series. Rorshacma (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Per Rorsacma. Geko72290 (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2023 (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.