| Revision as of 21:15, 1 October 2007 editGavin.collins (talk | contribs)18,503 edits Add to list of science fiction deletions← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:17, 1 October 2007 edit undoSgeureka (talk | contribs)Administrators34,676 editsm →Pregnancy in science fiction: expand rationaleNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| :{{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. (To clarify: I am not attempting to misuse AfD for cleanup work, but I ask whether there should really be an article when no-one cares to write about it - ], ], ],...) – ] <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> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ].--] 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)</small> | ||
Revision as of 21:17, 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. (To clarify: I am not attempting to misuse AfD for cleanup work, but I ask whether there should really be an article when no-one cares to write about it - Dogs in science fiction, Food in science fiction, Music in science fiction,...) – 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)