Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucidique

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 redirect to Tortured Souls. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucidique[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not a notable character. Dronebogus (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wow, that's bad. Unreferenced WP:SUBSTUB with no indication of real world significance, fails WP:NFICTION and GNG. Please consider WP:PROD for such articles first, however, I doubt this would be objected to as it is not related to any big franchises. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tortured Souls#Characters: Not independently notable, but plausible search term. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a shred of notability Spiderone 15:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tortured Souls - The individual character fails the WP:GNG on its own, but as it is already covered on the main article for the franchise (which a quick search shows does pass the WP:GNG, Redirecting there should work. This seems uncontroversial enough that it could have probably been WP:BOLDly done without going through an AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Joseph2302 and Rorshacma—indifferent on the anchor/section. If there is a valid alternative to deletion at a suitable target that already exists, WP:ATD-R should be used. --2pou (talk) 19:48, 14 December 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.