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 keep. Please propose a Wikipedia:Merging in the proper way. I think that's your best option, or you can improve the article. Seems like deletion isn't really ideal, so improve or merge. Missvain (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic[edit]

Fantastic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see what makes this different from Fantastique. Maybe some parts of this could be moved over to that article but a lot of the content is written in an unencyclopedic tone. I also don't think that this "genre" (or whatever) is the main topic of the word "Fantastic". ★Trekker (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Also I made a journey over to Wikidata to check out this article and Fantastique's items, and turns out there seems to be a major cluster-fu** going on in regard to what pages are connection to each other as far as fiction, speculative fiction, fantasy, Fantastique, etc are concerned. The Russian article located at this article item does not seem to be about the same thing as this article tries to be about. "Общелитературная фантастика" appears to translate to General literary fiction. Very confusing.★Trekker (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and move Fantastic (disambiguation) to this title. Fantastic and Fantastique read as if they are on the same topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and move as suggested by power~enwiki. This appears to be a redundant article on the exact same topic as Fantastique. Rorshacma (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is about Todorov's conception of the fantastic, and cites several scholarly books (Brooke-Rose, Capoferro, Jackson, Siebers, Traill) that extensively engage with that conception and strongly indicate its notability. It's not hard to find many more good sources on the subject: [1], [2], [3], [4]. To the extent that this article covers the same ground as fantastique it's because the latter article is much more muddled, much less well-sourced, and probably not about a notable topic. If there were to be a merge it should be that article (or whatever parts of it are salvageable) that's merged into this one, not the other way around. (I wouldn't object to moving the disambiguation page to the base name and this to fantastic (genre) or similar, but that needn't be decided here.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Arms & Hearts: I think both these articles are very poor, when reading this page I could not understand what it was supposed to be about. If you are correct and this is about a separate thing from the other article, then this page needs to become far more clear about that and rewritten to not sound like an essay.★Trekker (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Please see the last paragraph of the Definition section of Fantastique, which explains that Todorov's Fantastic is different than what the Fantastique article attempts to explain. Both articles appear to have merit in their own right. This particular article is very well referenced and supported - if the issue is the overlap with Fantastique, I'd like to keep both and encourage some additional work to separate the two apparently disparate topics.--Concertmusic (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge other article as described by Arms & Hearts. This article is in better shape and more clear. My read of it is that they cover the same ground. I would also support the merge the other way. Either way they could be later split if the sources support it. Archrogue (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far I've gotten no good consistent agument here. This article being in better shape than the other is not saying much, and does not mean that a merge that way would be helpful.★Trekker (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.