| Revision as of 21:06, 1 October 2007 editSgeureka (talk | contribs)Administrators34,676 edits Creating deletion discussion page for Pregnancy in science fiction | Revision as of 21:15, 1 October 2007 edit undoGavin.collins (talk | contribs)18,503 edits Add to list of science fiction deletionsNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| :{{la|Pregnancy in science fiction}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|Pregnancy in science fiction}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| Many problems. For an article that was created in 2003 (spinoff from ]), it is in a really poor shape. It's basically an unsourced list that is close to failing ]. The inclusion criterion isn't really outlined, and quite entries in the list don't even deal with pregnancy but ]. With 1000 google book hits, I guess a real article about this topic could be written, like ] (pretty good for all its failings), ] and ] (both acceptable for a start). Maybe this AfD will create some substance for the article that it failed to include in the past four years. Because without it, deletion can't be much worse. – ] <sup>]•c</sup> 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC) | Many problems. For an article that was created in 2003 (spinoff from ]), it is in a really poor shape. It's basically an unsourced list that is close to failing ]. The inclusion criterion isn't really outlined, and quite entries in the list don't even deal with pregnancy but ]. With 1000 google book hits, I guess a real article about this topic could be written, like ] (pretty good for all its failings), ] and ] (both acceptable for a start). Maybe this AfD will create some substance for the article that it failed to include in the past four years. Because without it, deletion can't be much worse. – ] <sup>]•c</sup> 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ].--] 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)</small> | |||
Revision as of 21:15, 1 October 2007
Pregnancy in science fiction
- Pregnancy in science fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Many problems. For an article that was created in 2003 (spinoff from Pregnancy), it is in a really poor shape. It's basically an unsourced list that is close to failing WP:NOT#IINFO. The inclusion criterion isn't really outlined, and quite entries in the list don't even deal with pregnancy but infertility. With 1000 google book hits, I guess a real article about this topic could be written, like Sex in science fiction (pretty good for all its failings), Nudity in science fiction and Gender in science fiction (both acceptable for a start). Maybe this AfD will create some substance for the article that it failed to include in the past four years. Because without it, deletion can't be much worse. – sgeureka 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction deletions.--Gavin Collins 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)