Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Fictional elements. 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|Fictional elements|~~~~}} 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Fictional elements.
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.


Purge page cache watch

The guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and essay Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) may be relevant here.

Related deletion sorting


Fictional elements[edit]

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]

Jack Marston (Red Dead)[edit]

Jack Marston (Red Dead) (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 character lacks significant coverage and is not independently notable from John Marston or the video games. The article consists entirely of original research, with only a handful of references taken from a different article (all of which only mention Jack in passing, or not at all). Based on my research of the topic, I don't believe any significant coverage exists, and any further passing mentions can be covered on this list. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: He's a fairly minor character until the very end of Red Dead, and in Red Dead 2, he's a small child you read with and take fishing... The sources used aren't all about Jack, but about the games themselves. Trivial coverage about a minor character. Oaktree b (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Characters of Red Dead Redemption 2, where the character is mentioned. My arguments are the same as above, but we have a viable AtD here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laputa[edit]

Laputa (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)

I have no opinion on this, but am opening this AfD because there has been an edit war between WP:BLARing this article (citing a lack of secondary sources) and keeping it as an article. Natg 19 (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR, TompaDompa, and Викидим: (users involved in the edit war). Natg 19 (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for opening this discussion; I was just about to do so myself. I'd prefer to uphold the redirect to Gulliver's Travels § Part III: A Voyage to Laputa, Balnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrib and Japan. I've had concerns about this article ever since I came across it last year. (diff) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I undid the initial WP:BOLD WP:Blank and redirect on the basis that WP:Articles for deletion/Brobdingnag (2nd nomination) resulted in "keep" back in 2022, meaning there is precedent to keep stand-alone articles (such as Brobdingnag) on locations in Gulliver's Travels, and the article should at minimum be brought to WP:AfD first. On the merits of having a stand-alone page, a quick Google Scholar search (scholar:laputa) gets a fair number of hits (that I have admittedly not looked particularly deeply into) that suggest that the topic at least meets our WP:Notability requirements. That does not rule out a WP:NOPAGE situation, of course. TompaDompa (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ping the participants in the above-mentioned deletion discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Brobdingnag (2nd nomination)—@Jontesta, PatGallacher, Vexations, Jclemens, BennyOnTheLoose, and Bearian: Feel free to weigh in here. TompaDompa (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TompaDompa: The difference is that Brobdingnag has decent secondary sources, while Laputa uses only primary sources. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to believe that any content using these sources should be located at Gulliver's Travels or a subpage of that article. Skimming through some sources on the topic, I'm seeing a majority of the discussion of the subject in the context of the larger work and not of the location in isolation, and the encyclopedia should probably reflect that. I'm also not convinced by the precedent set by the Brobdingnag article, which is currently struggling from quite a bit of in-universe fluff that seems more reminiscent of a fan wiki. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no doubt that there exists a body of very substantial scholarship on Brobdingnag (and, possibly, Laputa). This is Swift, after all, not some computer game universe. However, it seems to be much easier to delete the existing text and simply wait for someone to create an article that will show this project in a good light. The kind of WP:OR obvious in both Laputa and Brobdingnag tends to attract more of the same. We want editors looking for secondary WP:RS, don't we? Викидим (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NEXIST says that notability is based on the existence of reliable sources, not the current state of the article. You are suggesting we WP:TNT the article, which should only be done in extreme cases. It is much easier to improve an existing page than it is to create a new one. Toughpigs (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First three statements: yes, of course for all three. The fourth one It is much easier to improve an existing page than it is to create a new one. Not necessarily. I wrote some articles from scratch and modified some, and I think that in many cases writing from scratch is much easier. In this particular case, note how much the sources listed below by BennyOnTheLoose deviate from the current text: none of the subjects in the suggested secondary sources appear to have been touched upon in the current text. Викидим (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The article as-is entirely relies on the text of Swift's books (the only non-Swift source currently listed does not appear to be used). I can imagine an article on the subject that shows notability, but this text is not it: I do not think that the WP:DUE content of the hypothetical replacement will use much of the current text. --Викидим (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like there plenty of potential sources, e.g.:
Laputa, the Whore of Babylon, and the Idols of Science. Dennis Todd, Studies in Philology, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Winter, 1978), pp. 93-120
Science and Politics in Swift's Voyage to Laputa. Robert P. Fitzgerald, The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. 87, No. 2 (Apr., 1988), pp. 213-229
The Unity of Swift's "Voyage to Laputa": Structure as Meaning in Utopian Fiction. Jenny Mezciems, The Modern Language Review, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Jan., 1977), pp. 1-21
The "Motionless" Motion of Swift's Flying Island. Robert C. Merton. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1966), pp. 275-277
Laputa, the Whore of Babylon, and the Idols of Science. Dennis Todd. Studies in Philology, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Winter, 1978), pp. 93-120
The Scientific Background of Swift's 'Voyage to Laputa'. Marjorie Nicolson and Nora M. Mohler, Annals of Science, II (1937), 291-334
Swift's Flying Island in the 'Voyage to Laputa'. Marjorie Nicolson and Nora M. Mohler, Annals of Science, II (1937), 405-30
Swift's Laputians as a Caricature of the Cartesians. David Renaker PMLA, Vol. 94, No. 5 (Oct., 1979), pp. 936-944
These came up from a very quick search of JSTOR. I've only glanced over them, so if someone tells me that they don't actually cover the subject in detail then I'd be open to changing my view. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: One of the articles that BennyOnTheLoose identified, "The Unity of Swift's Voyage to Laputa: Structure as Meaning in Utopian Fiction", is included in Jonathan Swift: A Collection of Critical Essays. Internet Archive has the book, but unfortunately you can't see the whole thing: this is the link. Still, you can see the chapter heading and some sample text. Swift is important; people have been writing critical analyses of Swift's work for more than two centuries. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also found another chapter, "Gulliver in Laputa", in a 1968 collection, Twentieth Century Interpretations of Gulliver's Travels: A Collection of Critical Essays. Toughpigs (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above sourcing. I'll further note that "delete it until someone comes along and writes a better article" is a statement void of empirical underpinning: no one has demonstrated that is how reality works, even though the sentiment has been bandied about for probably a decade or more. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My work on Russian Wikipedia provides many empirical examples of this - entirely common - situation: if an article on an important subject is missing, its very absence spurs editors recognizing its importance to create one. In cases like that, where there are a lot of users ready to add WP:OR based on the personal understanding of the Swift's text, the previous fate of the article helps to explain the need for secondary sources. Au contraire, a text that is essentially OR based on primary sources, tends to attract more of the same. Викидим (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor characters[edit]

List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor 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)

Fails WP:NLIST. Adding together many non-notable topics still gives you a non-notable topic. Some character articles like Sarah Jane Smith are notable but does not support having a list about every character in the series, which do not have significant coverage as required by WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. The problem here is less notability, but more size. The list can likely have the bulk of its content merged into the cast list already in the article given the bulk of characters here are at least decently recurring. This feels like it was dropped partway through, since the only characters beyond the significant recurring characters are minor characters from the first episode exclusively. If this does survive, it needs a major TNT/overhaul, but personally I don't see a reason for this to exist just based off of size reasons. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename, or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. I am not convinced the split into cast and minor characters is beneficial. So I could imagine keeping and renaming this into List of The Sarah Jane Adventures characters, and include brief descriptions and links to the cast characters, most of whom have their own articles. Seems helpful to me for navigation. With regard to notability, as mentioned above, I question if it makes any sense to try to divorce conventional fiction works from the characters. What would they be without the characters? Of course there still needs to be enough material in secondary sources to write anything. Still, if one wanted to ask for secondary sources specifically discussing the characters of The Sarah Jane Adventures, Dancing with the Doctor discusses them at various places, as does the book mentioned above and others. So even if one wanted to ask for notability of characters as opposed to the series as such, that would still be fullfilled. All that said, I don't have an overview how much the secondary sources in total have to say on characters other than the main cast (and how incomplete the current list is with regards to what Pokelego999 mentioned), so I cannot say if a stand-alone article or a merge would be best in the long run, based on WP:PAGEDECIDE rather than notability. Daranios (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures per WP:ATD. I only find WP:SIGCOV for characters who already have articles. The minor characters don't have much coverage, but are summed up nicely at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amsvartnir[edit]

Amsvartnir (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)

This subject has only trivial mentions in secondary sources. The article fails WP:NOTABILITY because it does not reach the threshold of significant coverage for a separate article. Jontesta (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City of Thi[edit]

City of Thi (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)

A WP:BEFORE search presented only trivial mentions about this topic. This article fails WP:NOTABILITY because it does not reach the level of significant coverage required. Jontesta (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Keeping, or even merging it somewhere, kind of needs to have some kind of sources outside of the actual book, and I am honestly finding absolutely nothing. Even sources/summaries about Lost Princess just kind of gloss over it as just stating its one of the odd locations they run across. Rorshacma (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Land of Ev and the Deadly Desert are different — there are some actual sources talking about them as notable features of the Oz stories. City of Thi is a very minor location that I'm surprised to learn has an article. Toughpigs (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also nobody stopping anyone from undoing the redirect or moving the page to their userspace for future notability searches. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that they are different, but a huge section of that article is cited to nothing, and some of it is cited to the book itself, and we don't know how much is in the offline book. Land of Ev, too, is a more important place but it didn't feature much after Ozma of Oz, and the article is largely cited to nothing and has a lot of non-Baum content. This one by itself has a very weak do-not-delete rationale but as part of a larger article it could be OK. I don't know whether we can accept a citation to the book (it's widely done, but...)
    At some point a decision was made to deal with the characters, and it's a helpful article if people keep nominating these borderline place-in-Oz articles perhaps we can contain them in one place. Meanwhile Land of Oz keeps getting bigger. And there are plenty of places that don't get articles, like the Nome Kingdom. It's not indiscriminate, the Land of Oz as a whole and its features have been written about (I think). Oblivy (talk) 09:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaean Reach[edit]

Gaean Reach (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)

Non-notable article composed of unreliable or primary sources. A search showed only trivial mentions, no significant coverage in reliable sources. My assessment is that it does not pass WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Science fiction BEFORE searches should include scholar and books. PhD thesis from South Africa here has detailed commentary on pp 91-100, and is contrasted to clearly notable science fiction universes like Asimov's Foundation. Also appears to be covered in Handbook of Vance Space by Andre-Driussi, ISBN 978-0964279568, but I am unable to see previews for that. Also appears in Xeno Fiction: More Best of Science Fiction: A Review of Speculative Literature by Broderick and Ikin, ISBN 978-1479400799, but again--I don't have access beyond snippet view, which appears promising. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa (Barbie)[edit]

Teresa (Barbie) (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)

Non-notable children's toy and fictional character. Article does not establish notability. Of the seven references present on the article at the moment:

  • Ref 1 is a YouTube video on a fan channel, probably a copyright violation, and is a primary source (it's a release trailer)
  • Refs 2 and 3 are primarily about other characters
  • Ref 4 is a picture of Barbie merchandise (primary source) hosted on Flickr
  • Refs 5, 6 and 7 are primary (barbie.com)

In my opinion, the article's prose makes no attempt to establish the notability of this character, and the references provided do not establish notability either. Adam Black t • c 23:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The sources found after my initial comment in addition to the one I already mentioned above seem to push Teresa into passing the WP:GNG. The article should be updated to replace the primary sourced "plot" content with the sourced analysis, but it does not appear that Deletion would be appropriate here. Rorshacma (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above doi links are all accessible via the WP:Library access. All that said, enough sources WP:NEXIST to establish her notability. The article can obviously be improved to incorporate some of this, but it does not need deletion. -2pou (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am convinced by the sources found by Rorshacma (at least a page of The Marketing of Toys) and 2pou (several pages in Barbie Culture). Barbie is important; people write about it. Toughpigs (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juhani (Star Wars)[edit]

Juhani (Star Wars) (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)

Source analysis from reception: Of all sources that have been used, Gizmodo [1] is the only sigcov here. [2] Passing mention. [3] A trivia coverage from a listicle. [4] trivia coverage. [5] just a passing mention of Juhani being a lesbian character and can have lesbian relationship with trivia coverage [6] passing mention [7] listicle [8] just talked about her being created as a lesbian and the romance, a bit useful but this and Gizmodo isn't enough to pass the notability threshold. The rest of the sources that I didn't mention aren't reliable/situational and cannot help WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:49, 21 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 Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the character list. The reception consists of trivial mentions with no indication of standalone notability at all. Simply being a milestone for something is not enough to merit a page, unfortunately. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The character's milestone status does seem to have gotten her some attention from outside the normal fan-coverage sources, however. Whether it's sufficiently significant coverage, I'm a terrible judge. But see: Dym, Brianna (2019). "The burden of queer love". Press Start. 5 (1): 19–35. (pp. 24-26 in particular) and Shaw, Adrienne; Friesem, Elizaveta (2016). "Where is the queerness in games?: Types of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer content in digital games". International Journal of Communication. 10: 3877–3889. (admittedly, only one paragraph on p. 3883 but includes context and analysis outside the first game). Snippet view (and Google Scholar) suggest there might be some discussion of the character in chapter 8 of this Routledge-published book, but I don't have immediate access and my library doesn't have a copy handy. Lubal (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect There are only passing mentions of this in reliable sources. It isn't enough to pass the notability threshold. Jontesta (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Torchwood items[edit]

List of Torchwood items (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)

I don't use the term CRUFT lightly, but this certainly feels like the definition of it. Nothing covers objects in Torchwood to a significant extent, and the bulk of the items covered here are minor and non-notable. I definitely feel this list should likely be deleted, or at the very least partially merged into the Doctor Who items list, though I'm not feeling confident on that list either. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:23, 20 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 Television. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of meeting NLIST, and it looks like it would fit in perfectly on a Fandom wiki. Ping me if anything comes up that could change my mind. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A complete mishmash of random things related to Torchwood, ranging from things that appeared in the background of an episode, to things mentioned once or twice, to just real world things that just happened to be shown on screen. There are very clearly no sources that cover this random gathering as a group or set, meaning it fails WP:NLIST, and probably runs afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. I think even a Fandom wiki would think twice before including a page like this. Rorshacma (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:CSC #2. The topic of this list is "Torchwood" not "Torchwood items", much like the topic of "characters of franchise" is "franchise" so the group does not have to be discussed as a set to meet NLIST, because Torchwood is already notable. No objection to renaming the article, but since we have other AfDs likely to close as merge to here (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardiff Rift) deletion is particularly problematic as it would result in the destruction of content that could be better rewritten from history to be more encyclopedic. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because Torchwood is inherently notable does not mean this list should really be existing. It's a collection of indiscriminate information about random items from the show, none of which seem to have much of an indicator that they're actually important. There's no real encyclopedic value here, as there's nothing really to be discussed. Non-notable subsets related to shows have been removed in the past for these reasons (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who henchmen (2nd nomination) as an example from the same shared universe). As for the Cardiff Rift discussion, the Rift isn't really an item, so I'm not sure why it's being brought up in regards to that discussion, especially since the Rift isn't even mentioned in the Torchwood items article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OSE applies both ways; previous removals aren't normative. If there's a need to edit a list, great, do it, improve it by editing rather than deletion. The fact that this is brought up in that deletion discussion gives us a hint that 1) there is a need for an article to cover not-individually-notable aspects from Torchwood, and 2) this may be it, but at the wrong title. I'm not the person to do this, since my wife peace out'ed after Countrycide so I'm hardly informed enough about the series. Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While CSC applies to lists, the list must still meet NLIST in order to be a valid standalone list, regardless of the notability of the parent topic. If this weren't the case, we'd be swarmed with a lot of useless lists like this one that don't really have any benefit to existing beyond the fact there's nothing saying they can't exist. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NLIST and WP:IINFO, per Rorshacma. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this as a stand-alone list. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Lane (DC Extended Universe)[edit]

Lois Lane (DC Extended Universe) (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)

I try again. Lois Lane is indeed an encyclopedic character but its counterpart from the DC Extended Universe seems to be irrelevant in a real world perspective. First thing first, this article does not meet the requirements of WP:NFILMCHAR: the character has appeared in three films, but not in a lead or titular capacity. Also, this iteration of Lois Lane does not have an extensive coverage. Redjedi23 (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We meet again, old friend.
As discussed last time, I wouldn't do a straight up delete, but would merge to either Lois Lane in other media or Characters of the DC Extended Universe if it's decided this page isn't worth being a stand-alone article. WuTang94 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pit (Kid Icarus)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pit (Kid Icarus) (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)

Article was brought back recently, and again I feel the arguments of the previous AfD hold true here. Every new source added- with few exceptions- are either unreliable or a very trivial mention in a review of Uprising. Even using sources from the previous iteration of Pit's article, there still isn't nearly enough for a whole article. I recommend to restore the redirect, since nothing has been proven to state that the discussion's consensus has changed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Kazama16, who revived the article, for thoughts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Redirect - This was just Merged by pretty strong consensus at an AFD just three months ago, and really should not have been unilaterally restored without some kind of discussion first, which as far as I can see did not happen. But, regardless of that, the current version does not show any greater coverage in reliable sources that was presented or found in the previous discussion. All of the added sources in the reception section are simply reviews and coverage of Kid Icarus: Uprising as a whole, where the few sentences and quotes that specifically talk about Pit as a character are being cherry picked out to give the illusion of significant coverage. Uprising was a notable game that garnered many reviews, but cobbling together a dozen minor sentences of "reception" on the main character in them do not add together to give Pit his own notability separate from that of the games he appears in. Rorshacma (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Sources that are used are press releases, listicles, or articles about the game not the character. Still the same as the previous AfD. Update. Article still fails notability. Most were just trivia or passing mentions. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Boneless Pizza! Listicles??? where show me sources that cite "Top 10 best video game characters", Top 10 archers in video games" show me where are those sources? please carefully check the article before choosing your decision. Also what about page no 8 and 9 of this book in Portuguese about Pit.[9]] This whole article is about him.[10] and this too [11] (about his supposed design). There might be even more sources that are currently not present in the article, so stop being quick for deletion as I suggest. Kazama16 (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was exaggerating about listicles, but you're just throwing unreliable sources here except the book one which might be bit useful. Pls do not bludgeon the discussion and make any WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to your original assessment, I would say this one is definitely a listicle (and one that isn't even on Pit at that!), so you were not wrong. Rorshacma (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a mention of Pit in it on 9# Tetris. Quote= How cool is that? Well, it’s even cooler than you think because it’s not only Link; Samus Aran joins him on the cello, Pit plays the violin Kazama16 (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you think "How cool is that? Pit plays the violin" is a valuable commentary to add at the article? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the game he appeared in not reception Kazama16 (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say he wasn't mentioned in it, I said that he was not the topic of the listicle in question. That sentence you quoted is the very definition of trivial coverage that is a very good example of showing what kind poor sources and cherry picked quotes are having to be used to try to make it look like the character has more coverage than he actually does. Rorshacma (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't really bludgeoning, they're just defending their reasons for making the article. Regardless, per above, 3 is only dev info, and that can only go so far given the lackluster Reception. The Fwoosh does not seem to be a reliable source. The book source is entirely plot summary from a quick read. None of these seem to be making an impact on notability, and per prior AfDs, searches for sources have historically turned up very little, making the THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument moot. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "so stop being quick for deletion as I suggest" doesn't sound right. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested the nominator not you, in a friendly way. Kazama16 (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but it still doesn't sound right to say it like that, and I don't think it is in a "friendly way". Sometimes it is really hard to help you, like I already told you before not to work on your Draft:Takeda Takahashi, because that character is not notable, but yet you still persist. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bring my past to this discussion, it has nothing to do with it. Kazama16 (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Redirect My prior rationale remains the same. I agree that it should have been discussed before it was restored. Perhaps it's worth pinging the restorer to this discussion to maybe give their opinion? Personally, I would not have taken it to AfD knowing the outcome will be the same, just redirect it. Conyo14 (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I felt it was likely going to cause some dispute if I did BLAR it, hence why I chose to AfD it. Additionally, I have already pinged the restorer, and they are actively participating in the discussion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I had drafted my response before seeing the restorer's active discussion Conyo14 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I think the article needs clean up and a trim to focus on best sources, from a search I'm left with a sense of sufficient coverage, beyond trivial mentions in a game review, of Pit as a multimedia character not reducible to a Kid Icarus redirect (perhaps only just, but even so). Participants in the discussion may already be aware of this IGN article which covers Pit across several media appearances outside Kid Icarus. In addition to that, I found this Bleeding Cool article reporting on and assessing a Pit figurine. And the first chapter of this academic book from Bloomsbury Publishing includes coverage of the Pit character in the Kid Icarus franchise. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A figurine/merchandise doesn't help WP:GNG; thus the article is still in a weak state. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has not been checked properly; the nominator has only looked over the reception section without checking the further reading section and assumed that it is not notable per the other two previous AFDS. Kazama16 (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lacking evidence that the nominator has not done that, I must say that as someone who has, it would not have caused me to change my mind about nominating it. All of the further reading section is either WP:ROUTINE articles coming about due to Uprising's announcement or an interesting but unreliable student article for a student magazine. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me for missing that, most video game character articles lack significant external reading sections, and additionally, those with them typically cite the articles in the Reception. In any case, per Cukie Gherkin above, I see no real significant coverage on Pit as a character in here. One is a review of an action figure unrelated to Pit's character, and the majority of the others are routine Kid Icarus Uprising coverage. The Writer's Block Magazine source looks decent, but I am unfamiliar with their reliability. In any case, one good source out of a swamp of them isn't really enough to justify Pit as an article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see much commentary in the IGN article. It seems more to be a summary of Pit's appearances, and any commentary that could be taken out of it is cherry picking. The Siliconera article is less about Pit and more about the make of a figurine than anything. The book source seems to be more about the Kid Icarus game itself being compared to the game Athena. Anything relating to Pit is in regards to his character is just plot summary, though correct me if I've missed anything. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the book source, WP:SIGCOV states that significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. On the Siliconera article, the article is about a figurine—of Pit. This isn't about figurines generally; it's about content pertaining to this character that would probably be undue in Kid Icarus but are relevant to understanding to the character Pit as promoted by the company and consumed by audiences. As for the IGN article, it seems we disagree with how to read and regard the source. Related to the book and IGN article, I'll add that I don't see where in WP:SIGCOV coverage that summarizes is prohibited. A Wikipedia article shouldn't be purely summary, but that doesn't necessarily mean a source isn't significant coverage if it is providing summarization. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect Nothing against articles getting revived, but this is still in the same place it was from the last AfD.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional source analysis While Odyssey may have "paid editorial website", I strongly believe anyone looking at the source used is going to quickly realize that is not a valid analysis of the character. We reject Forbes contributor articles from Paul Tassi and Erik Kain for less. And I feel like that's a recurring problem going on with the sourcing here, a hope that people are not actually looking at *what* the sources are saying and instead simply hoping they'll be enough. I mean no offense to Ms. Malbera, but is this genuinely the level of content we feel is appropriate for an encyclopedia? Going further, this is not a character analysis from The Gamer. It's a statement of traits to try and work into the context of Dungeons and Dragons. If there was additional commentary here on his character I could see it, but that's not the case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. On Talk:Pit (Kid Icarus) I did a rundown of all the references in the Critical Reception section (since it seems like the most problematic section at a glance), and that article is not the quality I'd expect from a reliable source. –LilacMouse (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, I see you edited while I was writing. I mean specifically Ms. Malbera's article. I haven't looked at the D&D one. –LilacMouse (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect I get the feeling the user who revived the article does not "get" what significant coverage is. Sheer amount of sources will not rescue an article, quality over quantity is needed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I mostly agree with Pokelego but not with the IGN article as not having "significant coverage,"  it's definitely useful and mostly about Pit. Although if you are assuming that it is not, that's all on you, sorry to say. This is about his prototype design, along with a YouTube video given by Game Informer (I don't know if it's reliable to you or not) after the 7:15 mark. It's mostly about adult Pit and his design. Nintendo Life (which may be unreliable to all of you) also covered this information in their article [12]. If the decision is still "restore redirect,"  I'm happily fine with the limited information being merged into Kid Icarus (series). Kazama16 (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see some decent reception in there, with Ars Technica, The Odyssey Online and Wired being the best sources, IMO. And the IGN source Hydrangeans provided is a good one too. It's not the best, but I don't think it warrants a re-merge either. MoonJet (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm going to have to ask you to point out specifically what reception on Pit in the Ars Technica and Wired articles you are considering to be decent, because both of those are ones that I am seeing very little discussion about Pit as a character, no more than a sentence or two. For example, with the Wired article, the only discussion I am really seeing about Pit that isn't just stating the premise of Uprising is the writer being annoyed that a friend of his wasn't cast as the voice actor as planned. Rorshacma (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to pretend I know enough about Wikipedia policies yet (yes, hello, I know my account is like 2 hours old) to say whether this page has an excessive amount of detail that doesn't really belong on Wikipedia, though I think it might. But I can say I looked at that Critical Reception section, saw it was a wall of text, and decided to try something.
Here's my sandbox, with the Critical Reception section edited so each reference is its own paragraph. Not only does it now take up half again as much space as the wall-of-text version, it and its references combined look like it's nearly half of the entire article.
Again, I'm new to Wikipedia, but this kind of looks like WP:OVERCITEing in the pursuit of proving notability? Possibly a WP:REFBOMB, if discussion above about how the references aren't really about Pit specifically is correct, but I've only copyedited the section, not looked at the references themselves. I hope having the Reception section separated into paragraphs makes it easier for other people to check the refs. -LilacMouse (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've applied paragraph spacing to the main article. –LilacMouse (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @LilacMouse has trimmed the Reception down to just sources talking about Pit, which can be viewed on the current edit of the article (The previous edit with all of the sources can be found here) I will note that this does not include the Odyssey source, which seems reliable and in-depth, and includes Goomba Stomp and The Fwoosh, which to my knowledge are unreliable sources. Even then, with only two really good sources holding up Reception, this article isn't meeting WP:THREE, which I know is considered a threshold by many editors. Many of the other sources suggested in this discussion have been debunked for one reason or another, and even if a third source is found, it's been proven by these discussions that Pit lacks a lot of critical commentary, meaning he would quite literally only have three sources, which, in this hypothetical scenario, does not guarantee enough for a split from the parent article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided not to keep the Odyssey source because the website looks like it's mostly UGC, which per WP:UGC is "generally unacceptable". This page specifically reads like a blog post, not reliable coverage. Honestly, Odyssey looks like a content farm to me.
I don't think I removed any of the sources when I added paragraph spacing, so here's my edit just before I pruned the section: here –LilacMouse (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, had no idea that Odyssey was UGC. Thank you for pointing that out. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The sources added are by and large low-quality or not a show of notability. As far as the sources mentioned by Dream Focus go, I question their judgment when they are arguing that a WP:ROUTINE news piece about figure release is a show of notability or significance. Articles about figure releases are very common, there is nothing exceptional about this. The D&D source is also quite tenuous, being a part of many articles, which doesn't come off as an exceptional source. It doesn't help that the article is from a source said to not be usable to demonstrate notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment To the AfD closer right here. Most of the keep votes are using the Odyssey source as their argument, but it is claimed to be a WP:UGC per above. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral comment Procedurally, I would normally revert this type of anti-consensus change, and restore the redirect. But this source from Dream Focus has a lot of potential [13]. It's an article entirely about the character, and not a mention or gameguide style reference. We'd need someone to actually include some of the reception in the final section. We'd also need more sources than this. But I am open to the idea that good sources exist, and this article can be edited to meet minimum standards of quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be primarily plot summary and conception info more than Reception. It's not a bad source but for the purposes of Reception there's very little. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Kelly (NYPD Blue)[edit]

John Kelly (NYPD Blue) (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)

Fails WP:GNG. Character that was in under 30 episode. Article is all plot. Cant find anything good. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The problem with that source, and many others in reliable sources I'm finding, is that they aren't about the fictional character as much as they are on the actor and the real-world consequences from his exit from the show. Great sources for David Caruso's article, but not so great for an article on John Kelly. This article, from New York (magazine) and this one from the NYT were the best two I found so far that actually do talk about the character a bit in addition to the actor, though they still aren't super great in that regard. Rorshacma (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coverage of one is coverage of the other. We don't judge why RS'es cover fictional elements, just whether and how they do. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Coverage of the actor, David Caruso, is not coverage of the fictional character, John Kelly. The article from the LA Times you linked is entirely about the real life actor, David Caruso, and his career. There is no actual information on any fictional elements in it. Rorshacma (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vette (Star Wars)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vette (Star Wars) (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)

It still feels like the only good source is [14] that. The controversy were mostly discussed about the game, similarly like Controversies surrounding Mass Effect 3 and not the character. It doesn't help notability about the character either, AND may be WP:UNDUE or whatever it is. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, always specify a target article if you are proposing a Merge or Redirect. We have hundreds (thousands?) of articles on Star Wars, its worlds and characters on many different platforms (film, TV, books, video games, maybe board games (?)) and the closer should be guessing which one you think is the most appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malhun Hatun (fictional character)[edit]

Malhun Hatun (fictional character) (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)

Fails WP:GNG. Having hard time to find any valuable source per WP:BEFORE + character has no reception at all. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Rift[edit]

Cardiff Rift (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)

Fails WP:GNG its WP:ALLPLOT and has been tagged for notability for 12 years Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @TheLongTone: WP:Fancruft: "The use of the term ... is not a substitute for a well-reasoned argument based on existing Wikipedia policies." Daranios (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not if I was voting for deletion but its a valid argument for merging of redirecting. The article is fancruft; the topic can be adequately covered in a para elsewhere.TheLongTone (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between editors arguing to Keep this article and those advocating a Merge or Redirect but who have offered no target article so it would be impossible to carry out their recommendation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep this article needs a heavy rewrite but I feel there's enough to show notability, especially since there really isn't a viable merge target. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge target What about Wormholes in fiction? Keeping this ludicrous mass of cruft as a standalone article simply because of doubt as to where it should be merge/redirected to is lame beyond belief.13:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • TheLongTone, it's a real and practical concern. XFDcloser can't close a discussion as Redirect or Merge without a target article identified. It just can't be done if that is the consensus opinion. And there has to be agreement on what that target article is. That's how the software works. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions[edit]

no articles proposed for deletion at this time

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Fictional_elements&oldid=1225371063"