Deletion of Far future in fiction

Comment: The nomination is erroneous from beginning to end.  The topic clearly passes the |general notability guideline because it is explicitly covered in Encyclopedia of Science Fiction|encyclopedias of science fiction.  ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SQMQQyIaACYC&pg=PA281 The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy'' has an article on the ''Far Future'' which naturally discusses influential works like Stapledon's ''Last and First Men'', just as our article does.  ''The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction'' naturally has a similar article on the ''http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/far_future Far Future'' in which it details the way that the topic has been covered in the different eras of the genre.  So, the topic is notable.  Our policy  then explains that "''If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.''"  The contrary idea of |blowing things up is not policy – it is a reactionary essay in opposition to our fundamental principle of wiki editing – that "''|Perfection is not required ... poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.''".  As for the |PROD process, note that it "''must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected''".  One should always expect opposition to such poorly-conceived nominations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ATD||WP:TNT||WP:PERFECTION||WP:PROD)

Comment: per , with no prejudice to recreation ''as an encyclopedic article''. We already know of at least one source, http://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/far_future a page in the ''Encyclopedia of Science Fiction'', but nothing in this article is worth keeping per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:PLOT)