Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements

WP:DELSORT/FICTION
WP:DELSORT/FICT
WP:DSFIC

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:

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.
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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

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]

Thor (The Asylum)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG--coverage is limited to within the context of reviews of Almighty Thor. Cribbing a reception section out of snippets of reviews of that film that comment on the titular character borders on absurd. Restoring the redirect to Almighty Thor seems most appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 14 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 Film. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Almighty Thor, the first movie this character appeared in. As described in the nomination, none of the sources are really about the character himself at all. They are general reviews or coverage of the films as a whole, without any kind of significant coverage specifically on the character that would warrant splitting it out into a separate article. On top of that, a number of these reviews are from websites that I am not sure would even qualify as being valid reliable sources. I honestly doubt this is going to be a very likely search, but as redirects are cheap, redirecting it to the main movie article would be fine. Rorshacma (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Almighty Thor; I'll note the sequel to that film has no article, but AGF that the first film should merit a single article. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts (Pac-Man)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recently unredirected by another user, who reverted on the basis of wanting a proper discussion as opposed to the previous BLAR. Adhering to this user's request for discussion, I have opened an AfD to determine what should happen to this article. The article's current sourcing state is particularly weak, with many uncited statements and a weak Reception section. If additional sources can be found to justify a split, then it would help the article's case, but right now it's very weak and not quite getting there, in my view. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally pinging @Kung Fu Man, who previously BLAR'd the article, and @Grapesoda22, who reverted the BLAR, for their inputs in this discussion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per my previous AfD. While as usual I feel like a BLAR was unwarranted as there is no way in heck this is "uncontroversial", especially since it passed a previous AfD, I still feel precisely the same way about the article I did before. There is not much here to warrant a standalone character article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While being bold is all nice and well, the consensus of the last deletion discussion of keeping from 2020 is not so old as to be ignored. The nomination claims there to be many uncited statements, but actually there is only the lead, where references are not generally expected, and one more unreferenced part where still the primary source is present. So just taking the referenced part, we already have an article which is beyond the length of a stub, ergo this topic fulfills the requirements of notability WP:GNG/WP:WHYN. Additionally, while the BLAR claims that trying to find sources has proven fruitless, the previous deletion discussion lists three web articles with the ghosts as the main topic (+ the CNN video), only a fraction of one of which has been used in the article, as listed by (Oinkers42) and detailed by Darkknight2149. Lastly, if the sources here were significant *to* Pac-Man, but not on their own, again as claimed in the BLAR, then why have no attempts been made to integrate at least some of them into Pac-Man as is suggested by Wikipedia:Deletion policy?

Now as the first deletion discussion was not that long ago, pinging the further participants in case they are still around and interested in the topic: @Namcokid47, Eddie891, Jhenderson777, Balle010, TTN, Rtkat3, Toughpigs, Captain Galaxy, Piotrus, Dream Focus, Shooterwalker, and Ret.Prof:. Daranios (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis Let's break this down:

This Kotaku article is an examination of notes regarding the character AI...which pertains strictly to the scope of the original Pac-Man as a game element within Pac-Man. It's the equivalent of making an article for a video game gun because the gun is the strongest in that particular title.
Business Insider's article is also regarding Pac-Man development info, though at least gives a bit more commentary on the ghosts separate of the source in terms of design. It doesn't however help to establish why they should be separate.
This Game Informer article is weirdly more reception for Pac-Man than the Ghosts? It can be cited for reception but won't be the biggest amount of commentary, but it's also the strongest source for actual reception. And this information is mostly already cited in the article.
the aforementioned CNN article which goes hand in hand with the Kotaku ref.
Now these are just the sources brought up during the AfD, but one has to seriously consider what a source is saying. Additionally trying to hold up a 2020 AfD as a gold standard for a Keep when things have improved (including several Smash Bros. related character articles that had similarly weak reception) is a folly. Previously I made a comment that the Koopa Troopa article should have been kept because there was nowhere for that information to go. Here I contend the opposite: the worthwhile information is perfectly fine to merge into the Pac-Man game or series article, and what's here when that's considered is just too weak relying on lists, quips and WP:ITSPOPULAR.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given the explanation of the sources above, we should still be ok for !keep. 2020 was around when I started participating in AfD and the discussion seems to be about of the same quality as the ones now... Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They've even done peer-reviewed articles about them: [1], although some might be tongue-in-cheek, we could at least argue the social impact of the ghosts. clicking on the Gscholar link in the lead brings up several journal articles; it seems the "Pac Man ghosts" are used as an analogue for a variety of things being studied in several fields. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree and Kung Fu Man's source analysis. Conyo14 (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The previous consensus still holds. Kung Fu Man's source analysis didn't mention the source that I added and mentioned in the AfD discussion -- Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, 1949-2003 (McFarland & Co, 2005), which discusses how the creators of the 1982 cartoon handled the problem of depicting the hero eating the ghosts. Toughpigs (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for now. I may come back to this later, but I feel like there is room for expansion with the sourcing this article has right now. If it can't be for whatever other reason that gets brought then I will lean towards redirect (merge). That being said, has anyone checked for Japanese sources yet? Just thought would be worth mentioning...... Captain Galaxy 19:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.destructoid.com/blinky-inky-pinky-and-clyde-a-small-onomastic-study/ and https://kotaku.com/pac-man-ghosts-are-smarter-than-you-think-1683857357 prove reliable sources give them significant coverage. Dream Focus 20:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Despite BLAR-ing it (and still feeling BLAR is a positive motion), I feel the found sources now do indicate some notability. I would however suggest to any editors currently not engaged in other projects to work the sources in, as "well it's on the AfD page!" doesn't really give a good indication especially four years later, and not in light of improving standards.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Destructoid reference was in the section you deleted. I think the information is better portrayed in a table than just text in the article. Does anyone else have an opinion on this section? [2] Dream Focus 21:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A better approach would probably be bullet points and using the Nihongo template to be honest, but that can be done when the dev section is rewritten. Tables in the middle of character articles unless you're doing a list tend to be pretty rough on the reader. (I also feel some consideration should be done that most of the later added ghosts may not have the same level of notability, especially given those citation needed tags, but I digress as that's another matter).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided above. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vette (Star Wars)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It still feels like the only good source is [3] 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the character list. As with the last AfD, most coverage about her is about a single controversy, and it feels undue to spin off into its own page. Still, I doubt this will reach a different outcome than last time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zxcvbnm's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Hudson[edit]

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

Having a hard time finding any valuable sources about this character per BEFORE. Most of it were just talking about its mysterious death. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:09, 12 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. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Disney. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Cars characters. Article is all cruft, most of it unsourced. Extensive BTS content doesn't automatically make a subject notable, while there's no independent coverage or reception. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Cars characters - There isn't much in the way of non-primary sources on the character that go beyond trivial mentions or basic plot summaries. I am not finding enough significant coverage that would allow them to pass the WP:GNG on their own. Most of the actual sources being used in the Reception section are not even about the character, and many of them do not even mention them - that strikes me as being pretty heavy on WP:SYNTH. Rorshacma (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I found an article on the real Hudson Hornet driven by Herb Thomas, but it merely mentions the film. Most of this article is WP:PLOTSUMMARY. Conyo14 (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirest to the specified page per above comments. This is consistent with other character redirects which have significant roles in the film plots, such as Forky, Hopper (A Bug's Life), Boo (Monsters, Inc.). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malhun Hatun (fictional character)[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the film. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Donovan[edit]

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

Non notable character. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCHAR. List of South Park characters already exists. Previous merge requests on the talk page rely on WP:ITSIMPORTANT. -1ctinus📝🗨 22:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of recurring Entourage characters[edit]

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

Adding together many non-notable topics still gives you a non-notable topic. The individual character articles like Ari Gold (Entourage) or Vincent Chase might reach the threshold of significant coverage required by WP:NOTABILITY. But this miscellaneous list does not. Jontesta (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Entourage is notable, and WP:CSC #2 applies to a list of individually NN characters from a notable show or franchise. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 8 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!} 23:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Rift[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Wales. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, for one, Illuminating Torchwood has a lot to say about the topic at various places, but usually calls it "the Rift" or "the rift" rather than the Cardiff Rift. Daranios (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Any chance you could add this to the article (and ping me)? There is a receptions section already, but sourced to a meh newspaper so far, and nothing else. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I've added what I had thought to from Illuminating Torchwood, tough there is some more, as can also be seen in previews of pages not available at Google Books. Daranios (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Thank you. Weak keep for me considering the current state of the 'reception and analysis' section. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Collecting further sources, shorter but still relevant are: Once Upon a Time Lord, pp. 129-130, "'You guys and your cute little categories": Torchwood, The Space-Time Rift and Cardiff's Postmodern, Postcolonial and (avowedly) Pansexual Gothic", and very brief but calls it "a key point in the mythology of Doctor Who during the Tenth Doctor era", this web article. Daranios (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That web aticle doenst count for very much. Valnet sources are not great for showing notability. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 12:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: I agree, was just listing it for future reference, useable as ScreenRant still counts as "reliable for entertainment-related topics". Might have phrased that better. Being convinced of the notability of the topic based on the other sources, I've gone ahead and added that to the article as low-hanging fruit. Daranios (talk)
Keep I believe the existing sources together establish notability. While there is currently an imbalance between plot and non-plot in the article, it is also not all plot, as I believe the criticism of the Cardiff Rift being a plot device for lazy writers is relevant despite being presented in a satirical manner. (The Register is considered a reliable source.) And these problems can be solved by normal editing with the listed sources. Daranios (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge: This isn't really a separate topic from the fiction itself. I do see some mentions in sources, but not enough to reach WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:25, 3 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]

Comment The non-plot content has been expanded now since the beginning of this AfD. Daranios (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge. This is dictionaty-definition fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 13 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]

- Comment Where should this be redirected/merged to? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Xanatos[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE shows that most of the sources were from the film, except this [4]. But, that is not enough for the character. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 04:19, 24 April 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. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 04:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic does not need to be the main subject to "count" with regard to notability. In my view, the mentioned Polygon article, this IGN article and the appearance in The Tropes of Fantasy Fiction, together with briefer appearances like here, establish enough material and commentary to fulfill the requirements of WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT, and therefore establish notability. Daranios (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Despite the existence of a great Polygon article for SIGCOV, the character doesn't pass GNG with the demonstrated sources. A compromise would be merging him to a list of characters. The trope of Xanatos Gambit is purely a TVTropes thing and isn't super well-known outside of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: If the trope of Xanatos Gambit is purely a TVTropes thing, then why does it appear in secondary sources, including academic ones? Daranios (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing and getting heavy discussion are two different things. But if the trope is indeed discussed heavily in scholarly sources, it might merit an article on the trope itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think it's "discussed heavily", but it is discussed to some degree. Which again is different from being purely a TVTropes thing in my view. So I think it would be quite fitting to include the trope to a degree within the article here, which in turn means there is enough material to constitute a non-stubby article. Daranios (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting yet but concurring with Daranios here. If the concept is receiving actual discussion then it is a valid topic to cover in the article, regardless of potential origin. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep, per Daranios. DrBat (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a brief sourced summary to Gargoyles (TV series), fails GNG, nothing found meeting WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth are passing mentions at best, nothing that meets SIGCOV. BEFORE found nothing that meets SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 03:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraman Tregear[edit]

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

Most of it were just primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AfD'ing it to end the edit war. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:46, 19 April 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. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reject: you have no reason to delete this article!! Harimua Thailand (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:1566:1FAC:A05C:22B9 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harimua Thailand: We need coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (in this case, Ultraman) to have an article. This article has none of that, and should therefore be deleted. Characters as popular as King Dedede have been redirected for this reason. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except King Dedede is a different topic entirely and have some decent sources unlike this one (Full of primary sources).The Worst part is, there are other 3 Ultraman articles that are all sourced as primary. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 00:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, I was using him as an example of how notability is not popularity or being a well-liked character. The fact that he is in a better position than this character helps my point. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is literally no reception in reliable sources either in this article or on the web, so it does not meet GNG. If there is a good redirect target available, redirect it there. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reject:~~ Redirect is not allowed and the article must be keep!! Harimua Thailand (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:6938:8399:70DC:2892 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made the article, you have serious bias ^48JCLTalk 00:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harimua Thailand: You can only make 1 bolded vote per AFD. If you want to make another one, you must strike the old one. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are people allowed to vote twice? Cooper (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was about to say redirect but if you search by the Japanese name, ウルトラマントレギア, a lot more sourcing comes up. Cooper (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entry on Japanese Wikipedia. Cooper (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its a primary source. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick searches brought me these two. Cooper (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable. See WP:RS, if there's a reliable source then it helps GNG. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it's unreliable? Just because you aren't familiar with a website doesn't make it unreliable. I'm not familiar with those website either, but both of those websites are used dozens to hundreds of times on Wikipedia. And they look fine to me. Cooper (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they are not unreliable, but a situational source. Then it couldn't even help WP:GNG. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG says that reliable "sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." Let's not discriminate Japanese media. Cooper (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even proven as a reliable source. But, lets drop this and move on since we have different perspective. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like you're just trying to deny that any source is valid, for whatever reason occurs to you at the moment. I don't think there is such a thing as a "situational source". Toughpigs (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because its just a reveal source. For the character it says only about this "Among the many Ultraman, Ultraman Taro is the one for whom I feel a powerful, powerful affinity" thats it. But, I don't see any point of making this discussion much longer. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what is a "reveal source"? Cooper (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I meant that the source is a Character reveal only. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Situational sources have been a thing on the site for a long time. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing this? Thing is, "situational" seems to mean there can be red flags in some sources that would normally be reliable, like if they were writing about something out of the usual scope. I don't think that applies here. Coop (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Situational is generally accepted to mean "use with caution" and typically means that it is unacceptable in some areas and fine in others. Some situational sources have been marked as fine for proving facts but unacceptable for proving notability. This does not apply to all situational sources, but keep in mind that you need to be careful with that kind of source. No comment on the individual links at this time since I don't speak Japanese. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do we tell if a source is situational though? It felt like Greenish Pickle! was just casting their own opinion. Coop (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to cast votes, but if the consensus brings to delete, I would like to suggest an alternative by redirecting Ultraman Tregear to List of Ultraman Taiga characters. I can compress and salvage whatever remains from this page to their appropriate articles. Zero stylinx (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do editors think of the suggestion of redirection? Please remember not to bludgeon an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Ultraman Taiga characters as a fair alternative to deletion. Jontesta (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The general notability guideline can be met with non-English sources and with sources available in print rather than in digital. Coverage of the character appears in volumes 164, 171, and 172 of Uchusen, a long-running Japanese periodical about media and tokusatsu. There is also coverage in volumes 256, 265, and 273 of Figya Kingu (Figure King), a Japanese periodical about figurines and toys. Add to this the Tokusatsu Network coverage in English that Cooper found further up in the discussion.
If there is a dispute about sourcing or content in the article, that's something to resolve through means other than AfD. Consider reporting editors to WP:AN/EW rather than AfD'ing it to end the edit war. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus after the previous two.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of Ultraman Taiga characters: Fails GNG. Sources show the subject exists, they do not have WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth from neutral non-promotional reliable sources addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE including a search for ウルトラマントレギア found primary sources, name mentions, nothing meeting SIGCOV, from independent reliable sources. Keep votes are depending on name mentions and primary sources neither of which show notability. // Timothy :: talk 17:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions[edit]

no articles proposed for deletion at this time