Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements

Shortcuts

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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Fictional elements. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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

Butterfree

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

As a fan of the original 151 Pokemon and someone who enjoyed Bye Bye, Butterfree myself, I went over the sources carefully as I really want this to be notable. Unfortunately, it just doesn't seem that way at all and it doesn't feel like the article's recreation was justified. Arguably its best source is from CBR, which is considered "unreliable" post 2016. Everything else is pretty trivial, about the episode rather than the Pokemon itself, or from large general lists of Pokemon which don't indicate that particular one is uniquely notable. Even with the paper comparing bug Pokemon to real-world insects, I am not convinced GNG is passed here. I realize I may get hit with the "you nominated it the day it was recreated" argument, but the article did not have an "under construction" banner so I must assume that the creator believes it is in a finished state. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being about the episode does not mean that notability cannot be gleaned for Butterfree from the discussion of the episode and commentary on Butterfree's role in it. The Gamer discusses Ash's relationship with Butterfree and what its return could symbolize, and simply being a part of a greater article does not mean that the discussion of the urban legend surrounding it and Venonat is not a demonstration of notability (per WP:GNG). The fact that the episode is a large part of why people talk about Butterfree so much is immaterial to the fact that they do. There is also commentary on Butterfree's role in the game as an early evolver, as was it the subject of commentary as being Ash's first Pokémon caught. I also added this article, which discusses extensively Butterfree's relationship with Ash in the anime. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect to List of generation I Pokémon#Butterfree per nom - Most of the sources are game guides, extremely trivial mentions, and content-farm style "Top Ten" lists. The few that look half-way decent are just reviews/summaries of a handful of specific episodes of the anime that featured Ash's Butterfree, with no real discussion about the actual fictional species, and even those are not from the most reliable of sources. I also have to mention that there looks to be quite a bit of WP:REFBOMBing going on here. I already mentioned the trivial nature of the coverage of Butterfree in a lot of the included references, but some of these are literally one sentence mentions of that Pokemon and some, such as the first and fourth ones currently listed, don't mention Butterfree at all. Overall, I am not seeing anything to justify this specific Pokemon being split out into an independent article, and should be Redirected to its section at the Gen I Pokemon list. Rorshacma (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make the point that the sources you're referring to as not mentioning Butterfree are only used to verify basic information about what a Pokémon is, how they work, and how the games work. Not mentioning Butterfree does not make them not useful for this article, and the same citations are used on Raichu, a featured article. As far as top 10 lists go, there is nothing to suggest that merely being in a top 10 list makes coverage less significant. The Gamer, Crunchyroll, and the entomologist all provide significant coverage on the subject, even if Butterfree is not the main subject of their respective works. In the latter's case, they may be analyzing the Bug type as a whole, but they do not give each Pokémon equal weight. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sources not mentioning the subject can be useful for an article, but they also do nothing to help establish any notability for the subject, which is the issue at stake here. Its the sheer number of references being used here that either don't mention Buterfree or have a one-sentence namedrop that gives the impression of a WP:REFBOMB. As far as "Top Ten" style lists go, putting aside the fact that these are often from content farms that are generally not considered reliable sources, they also generally do not actually contain significant coverage. Take the IGN list included here, for example - its three sentences long, and its "coverage" of Butterfree is simply "Bye Bye Butterfree was sad", which is not significant coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? No one claimed those sources showed notability, they're there to verify facts, how is this refbombing in any capacity? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is the first two points of the WP:REFBOMB essay - an overkill of citations that briefly namecheck the subject without actually being about the subject, and citations that don't mention the subject and are presented to verify a fact that is not related to the subject's notability. Keep in mind that WP:REFBOMB is just an essay, not a policy - I am simply using it to demonstrate the larger issue - the fact that so many trivial citations are needed to be used to try to provide references for the article shows the lack of genuine significant coverage in reliable sources that would allow Buttefree to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: Something I feel needs clarification, by the "first and fourth one", are you talking about the references in the article itself or the reception section? Because references 1 and 4 are part of the "copypasta" used in these articles to establish terminology and context to the reader.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man:Yeah, I'm talking about the "copypasta" part that just has the general overview of what a Pokémon is. Which, yeah, I understand is needed for context, but still means about 7 of the citations in this article are not about the subject of the article, which combined with the fact that another 8 are of the "single word mentions" variety means that the article has a lot of citations - but more than half are not actually on the subject of the article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: That doesn't constitute a refbomb in this case though, that's a section agreed upon after multiple discussions at WT:VGCHAR to help readers understand these articles, and survived the FAC process just fine. Holding them against an article like this is realistically pretty unfair, as refbombing revolves around unnecessary sources in an article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I apologize, as I did not mean it to be a slight against the editors of the article or to imply any intentional wrongdoing on their part. It was mainly just to preempt the argument I occasionally see pop up in AFDs where someone will cite the number of references in an article as evidence of notability, without examining the amount of coverage of the topic in those references. It was basically just me saying "despite the number of sources present, the coverage of the subject within a lot of them is not significant". I'll try to use better wording in the future. Rorshacma (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an aside, is there any reason why CBR is unreliable in a way that other Valnet sources are not? I believe that general consensus is that being owned by Valnet is not disqualifying, and the article used here was published prior to CBR's layoffs and use of AI. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 30#Comic Book Resources, it seems to be due to a significant degradation of content compared to their old self, and the fact they didn't cover video game subjects until after Valnet bought them, which, additionally, was when their old staff practically all left the moment Valnet bought them. Admittedly I do feel I disagree in its complete unreliability, since it's about equal in terms of quality to the usual Game Rant/Screen Rant, but that was the rationale provided during its initial discussion. I feel if its status should be debated, another discussion at the Sources page would be warranted, but that is likely outside the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a key thing being missed here is the wording "generally" vs strictly unreliable. We've had discussions regarding Valnet afterward that are visible in the archives on the subject of editorial pieces, where the concerns with CBR were strictly about churnalism and AI usage accusations (the latter of which Valnet confirmed they have no plans to use). The article cited here however is an editorial opinion piece, and should be fine for usage.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While I would appreciate stronger sourcing, I feel what's here shows some potential avenues of discussion that help illustrate the character's notability. In the anime's regard, its character arc and the impact it had on viewers is definitely commented on frequently even years after its exit from the show. There's a dissertation here, which while brief actually covers how reactions to the anime helped affect the games itself later on. There's also discussion here on how Butterfree leaving continues a theme of loss and acceptance for children to understand. Additionally there is some design commentary, and while I'd like that to be stronger (then again, let's be real it's a butterfly), the avenue of its evolution being inconsistent and how fans have attempted to rationalize such and the importance of such rationalization is talked about in a published paper here. Now this is just from a cursory glance online thus far, but with how quickly I found these in scholarly works I feel there's enough to this subject to warrant it as a stand alone, it's just a bit in the rough.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't access one of them, the others you posted are only 1-2 sentences long when talking about Butterfree, so it kinda backs up the extremely trivial mention/REFBOMB idea here. This feels like it's going into a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument unless you can outright demonstrate several reliable, significant sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qward

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

None of these references meet WP:SIGCOV and the article is mostly unreliable sources, for what material even has sources at all. Jontesta (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daxam

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

None of these references meet WP:SIGCOV and the article is mostly unreliable sources, for what material even has sources at all. Jontesta (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Empire (Asimov)

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable fork of Foundation universe. This one has an abundance of material without proper references making it unsuited for an article and appropriate for deletion. WP:BEFORE indicated that Foundation universe might be a broader topic with some WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foundation universe, mostly WP:ALLPLOT with lackluster context of why it is independently important from the universe itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foundation universe - Almost entirely made up of overly detailed, in-universe plot information on one part of the Foundation series' setting. There is no indication that a split article is necessary, and the topic would be best covered as part of the article on the Foundation universe's overall plot and setting per WP:NOPAGE. What little there is here that is non-plot summaries and sourced to material aside from the books themselves is not great, and I don't see anything worth merging, but Redirecting would preserve the history if anyone thinks something should be moved over. Rorshacma (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hildisvíni

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

None of these references meet WP:SIGCOV. Bare mentions are not enough to write an article, but these minuscule terms from mythology are verifiable and could be an ok redirect term. Jontesta (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hildólfr

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

None of these references meet WP:SIGCOV. Bare mentions are not enough to write an article, but these minuscule terms from mythology are verifiable and could be an ok redirect term. Jontesta (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hildr

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

None of these references meet WP:SIGCOV. Bare mentions are not enough to write an article, but these minuscule terms from mythology are verifiable and could be an ok redirect term. Jontesta (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No single most obvious place to redirect, but doesn't seem standalone notable and the hits I'm getting are mostly from God of War, not actual mythology. Better to let the search function do its job. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bidoof

AfDs for this article:

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

Sigh Here we go again... Bidoof continues to fail WP:GNG as a non-notable Pokemon, even after the article resurrection. Why? Notability is not inherited. Most of the reception is talking about Bidoof Day - a separate topic - or the Bidoof's Big Stand animated short, also a separate topic. It's the equivalent of citing quotations from game reviews to justify the notability of a character within the game. While the Vice article has a solid amount of discussion about the Pokemon itself, that's only one source, and the other "major" one is a heavily meme-y Kotaku article, of the sort editors are advised to avoid at all costs. Many other sources are rather trivial.

I think Big Stand is arguably more notable than the Pokemon itself with a couple major reviews [1] [2] - though still not quite notable enough for an article from what I've found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. As is demonstrated in WP:GNG, a citation does not need to be talking about the subject primarily in order for it to be usable as a show of notability for the subject. Multiple citations used in the article state that Bidoof's popularity among the fanbase is responsible for why things like Bidoof's Big Stand and Bidoof Day exist in the first place, so to argue that their notability is not related to Bidoof itself is not a well-founded argument to make. This article provides sigcov on Bidoof as a meme, and this source, despite being a "listicle," provides adequate coverage and discussion of Bidoof to constitute sigcov. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as a gentle reminder, be sure to notify all relevant editors of the deletion of the article, not just the person who made the first edit. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elected to change to Redirect after discussing the topic with another editor. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect No consensus to override the last AFD and this continues to fail WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Yeah I'm gonna have to agree with Zx here. I've gone through the articles sources, and besides the Vice article, I'm not particularly convinced. The Polygon and Kotaku sources are pretty meme-y and are mostly just quoting Twitter posts, and I can't say they give much weight. I also don't know if I can count a ranking of all 150 original Pokemon as "significant coverage" when it's just a small paragraph in a sea of 149 other paragraphs. I don't think there's significant critical commentary here. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I just don't think this meets the mark... λ NegativeMP1 17:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect while I am a massive fan of this series and would love for a separate Bidoof article, I feel the current article is just not really cutting it. I have no oppositions to reviving this should more Bidoof content occur in the future, but right now, it feels like it's taking a lot of notability from Bidoof's Big Stand and Bidoof Day, which aren't really talking about Bidoof the species, and that it's better off probably waiting in the oven a bit longer.

As an aside, I feel Bidoof's Big Stand has potential as an article given the coverage for the episode, but I'd have to double check the strength of the refs on that one. Either way, I'd suggest redirecting Bidoof for the time being. No opposition to recreation if more coverage like the Vice source presents itself in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I do concur a lot of the notability is in regards to the short specifically, and while it's a known Pokemon, it doesn't feel notable on its own merits after a BEFORE and examining the sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Sakazaki

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

Getting this out of the way: the article is huge, but FANDOM pages are also huge, that doesn't have anything to do with a character's notability. In this case, Ryo does not appear notable, and the article only reinforces how Dan Hibiki, the character who is a parody of him, is probably notable while Ryo is not. What is not primary-sourced development information or plot summary is sourced entirely to trivial mentions or listicles that mention him alongside all other characters, only indicating KOF characters are notable as a group. I appreciate the effort to improve the article but Boneless Pizza was likely correct to redirect it in 2023. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made sure it in reception to make sure it had a big impact not only in game journalists discussing him on his own in different countries. Also real people. There are cases of people reacting to his marketing, developers inspired by his story or involving him or simply how important was him being a guest character in Fatal Fury Special also inspired the creation of the fighting game franchise KOF.Tintor2 (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case it helps, I added several new articles focused around him just now.Tintor2 (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are many articles on SNK characters (List of The King of Fighters characters), where I would struggle with notability. The recent additions don't show a significant change in notability. I think covering the character in an article together with SNK's other character would be more useful. IgelRM (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- 'Comment After talking with other users, I tried cleaning up the article by removing reviews and pointless revisions. Most of thecurrent articles are primarily focused on the characters and games narrative with the exception of his Mr. Karate alterego which is more rare so I used few previews for that. Furthermore, I have just found that the internet meme was far more popular worldwide and expanded on it. I also made sure to keep the only important Fatal Fury parts as Ryo's inclusion in FFSpecial is famous for inspiring the KOF franchise as well as guest characters. Same with his role in kof as I only placed articles focused on him and or team. I also changed the commentary of Dan Hibiki and how the company reacted to Dan's character by creating another parody character.Tintor2 (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, for now. There's definitely some potential for discussion regarding Ryo here, and I do feel there is some ground where establishing him helps Dan's article. But many of the sources I've looked through here just aren't saying anything or really next to anything and are mostly reviews. While I recognize the monumental effort I feel it needs a far tighter scope and a near nuke to boil down what's actually said about the character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against any removal of content but I think the current article passes the rule of best three:
The internet meme that has been so popular that has been part of an official mobile game.
Ryo is the first guest character in gaming history, inspiring The King of Fighters '94.
Dan Hibiki.

There is also all those other articles that aren't focused about gameplay or story, but critcize it like how Ryo's age makes no sense in Fatal Fury Special, his ridiculously unfiting built appearance from KOFXV, his rivalry appeal with Geese from XIV, etc. I agree content can be removed but deletion seems sudden.Tintor2 (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But what three sources do you feel hold up the article? It's not just concepts, but the sources themselves. So many of the things here don't even mention the character much or in passing, and those that do aren't saying really much at all. While I'm not saying there isn't something here, it's hard to see that in light of all this. So if you had to start from zero, what fistful of sources would you use as examples of it being notable?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rias Gremory

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

Character appears to fail standalone notability, and much of the article seems to fall under WP:FANCRUFT. The vast majority of the article is unsourced aside from primary references to episodes of the anime, and almost all the secondary references are only in the "reception" section. Almost none of these references meet WP:SIGCOV: 1 only briefly covers Highschool DxD, and is mostly about Jamie Marchi, 2 is primary, 3-23 are WP:USERG, and 24-29 are just describing merchandise, and most of them are USERG. 30 is the only reference that may be a reliable secondary source, but the article does not give significant coverage to Rias, and her cosplay is not ranked particularly high. Almost nothing about Rias appears on Google Scholar, nothing at all on JSTOR, and Google News only contains trivial mentions of Highschool DxD in general, and almost none of them are specific to Rias. The article overall reads like something from a Highschool DxD fan wiki, and Rias seems to lack any standalone notability. This article should be merged into List of High School DxD characters in a greatly abridged form. Masskito (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Anime and manga. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Extremely selectively, per nom. Rias is not independently notable and the article is WP:REFBOMBed with trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of High School DxD characters per Zxcvbnm. There is some coverage that doesn't quite break passed WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. It's best to mention this as part of an article about a notable topic, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Reagan

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

WP:FANCRUFT article with almost exclusively primary sources. No evidence of notability outside of the confines of the show and no information that can't be found at List of Blue Bloods characters. Mbdfar (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Reagan may also be of questionable notability. Mbdfar (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are the lead characters in a highly popular and well-discussed series. A Google News search returns hundreds of results, including articles primarily about the character, e.g., the just-published "Why Blue Bloods Fans Can't Stand Danny Reagan", Kieran Fisher, Looper (September 9, 2024); "It's Time for 'Blue Bloods' to Give Danny a New Romance", Jenna Kaylor, Collider (April 20, 2024). In print media, see, e.g., Les Linz, "Lessons from Blue Bloods that we can learn", The Seymour Tribune (July 31, 2021), p. A4, primarily about the Danny Reagan character. The ease with which sources can be found suggests that not a modicum of WP:BEFORE was done for this nomination. BD2412 T 03:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No questioning the notability of the series. Trivial mentions and characterizations in low-quality pop culture websites as your Google News search supplies does not indicate stand-alone notability outside of the context of the show. The character, despite being a lead, does not inherit notability from the show. I fail to see the encyclopedic value of the Looper article of recycled Reddit comments or the simple plot synopses found in the Collider article. I'm not even sure how to address the The Seymour Tribune piece. Mbdfar (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you're not sure how to address an article that ran in a print newspaper, then perhaps you should consider dropping it. Here's another source from near the very beginning of the series: "From New Kid to tough cop", David Hiltbrand, The Hackensack Record (November 11, 2011), p. G35. By the way, Newspapers.com returns over 800 hits for "Danny Reagan" "Blue Bloods", so I can do this all day. BD2412 T 03:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I only say that because it is a fluff article relating the character to biblical proverbs which does not seem encyclopedic, though it at least is relating the character to something outside of the show. That Hackensack article is about the actor, and I do not question the notability of Donnie Wahlberg. This is a very unimpressive WP:THREE. Mbdfar (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Hackensack article is about the actor being the portrayer of the character, even as early as 2011. There are also over a dozen Google Scholar returns for "Danny Reagan" "Blue Bloods", which indicate that there is also some degree of scholarly examination of the character, beyond the pop culture coverage. BD2412 T 03:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, a popular actor playing in a popular show will get coverage. Did you click on any of those Scholar links? I see undergraduate papers, theses, and trivial mentions. There were a couple I could not access, perhaps you can take some time to find out if there is anything usable. Mbdfar (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        In this case, it is a popular actor playing a popular character in a popular show. BD2412 T 18:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Blue_Bloods_characters#Danny Reagan. Notability may or may not be an issue, but WP:NOT#PLOT is. No need for a WP:SPINOUT article at this point; the LoC is sufficent until an editor comes around to cover this encyclopedically. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sgeureka. Once this is condensed down to reliable secondary sources, there isn't much left to WP:PRESERVE. A very selective merge is also a valid WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. from the history, was created by removing content from the list, follows that if creation is undone, removal of that content from the list must be undone. New sourced material should be merged as well. Same should go for Jamie Reagan, can be done bold/speedy. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional rodents in animation

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

A large majority of the list is completely unreferenced, a vast majority of the "notes" are unencyclopedic. May also fail Wikipedia:Listcruft. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Animal. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A redirect back to List of fictional rodents would be fine, per WP:ATD and WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of fictional rodents#Animation - The only reason this got so long that a split was necessary to begin with is because no attempt was being made to stick to any kind of criteria to limit it only to notable examples, on either this or the parent list. Remove the copious amounts of non-notable and dubious examples and condense the multiple entries that come from the same topic (i.e., have one entry for groups like The Chipmunks rather than listing them individually as separate entries), and it would fit neatly into the main list without the need for a split. This spinout list is very poorly sourced, so I'm not going to formally advocate for a Merge, but Redirecting will preserve the history here. Rorshacma (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly fancruft and listcruft. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless and fancrufty split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Conyo14 (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge missing blue-linked entries to List of fictional rodents: I think this split is not necessary, a trimmed version would fit into the parent list size-wise. But whatever happened to WP:Alternative to deletion? List of fictional rodents could also use improvements, but is clearly useful for navigation in accordance with WP:LISTPURP-NAV. And a number of notable entries are present here but not at List of fictional rodents. So simple deletion or redirection would hurt the value of the parent list for navigation and be detrimental to the project, a case of WP:BATHWATER. Daranios (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mesklin

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

Non-notable article about a location composed of unreliable or primary sources. For WP:Before, a search showed only trivial mentions and in-universe plot summaries, without significant coverage or reception. Jontesta (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mission of Gravity. Some part of the text can be salvaged, and the novel is the main "user" of Mesklin. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mesklin gets a fair amount of discussion in literature about science fiction (mostly in the context of Mission of Gravity). It is generally considered a (or even the) prototypical example of hard science fiction worldbuilding. Some examples:
- The Dictionary of Science Fiction Places p. 199
- The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction p. 87
- The Science in Science Fiction p. 56
- How Space Physics Really Works: Lessons from Well-Constructed Science Fiction p. 31
- A Companion to Science Fiction p. 195

There are also things like "Applying Science to Fiction: A Look at the Fictional Planet Mesklin" (which I am unfortunately not able to read the full text of), and much, much more is available by simply searching for "Mesklin" at the Internet Archive (I haven't read it in full, but the first hit leads to Donald M. Hassler's chapter "The Irony in Hal Clement's World Building" in Science Fiction Dialogues, which covers Mesklin for several pages). I don't think WP:Notability is seriously in question here, and there's certainly an argument to be made that the fictional planet gets more attention as the point of focus in the secondary literature than the story it first appeared in. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Clarityfiend to Mission of Gravity. WP:BEFORE shows that the reception of the novel its science are covered in the same scope. Both articles are under sourced and will improve through a merge, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have located a fair number of sources providing coverage of Mesklin and have begun the process of rewriting and expanding the article based on these sources. Based on what I have found, I think merging this article with the Mission of Gravity article would be misguided. At minimum, I would suggest relisting this discussion to give more time for rewriting and expanding the article so we can make as informed a decision on the matter as possible. TompaDompa (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mission of Gravity as not requiring a split. Coverage of it in secondary sources appears trivial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mission of Gravity: per Clarityfiend. I did find some coverage (particularly from Harvard Uni), which is why I'd support a merge rather then a flat-out deletion. Sir MemeGod  20:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mesklin is also the name of the book series comprised of Mission of Gravity, Star Light and Close to Critical, so it could hypothetically be reframed to stay. However, the latter two books show the weight and detail that should be given to the planetory setting, meaning the current article is excessive and relies to much on WP:PRIMARY sources to really stand on its own. I've also read the summary of MoG: It's the science that drives the story, not the characters. The world is the plot.. In that way, I am leaning towards merge the sole planet article but keep as a book series article. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced a series article is super needed vs. just a section in Mission of Gravity detailing the book's sequels. Ultimately Mission of Gravity just needs some major expansion to detail its apparent importance, as right now it's start-class. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impasse (comics)

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

An incredibly minor fictional character that, from what I can tell, only appeared in one, single issue of a comic. The one non-primary source being used in the article simply summarizes the plot of that single appearance. Searches turned up absolutely nothing else, not even brief mentions, on the character in reliable sources. Even fan wikis like the Marvel Database don't have an entry on the character. The character is as completely non-notable as a fictional character can possibly be, and is a complete failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Rorshacma (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect to List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters due to lack of notability. The new article has her listed but she is one of the few characters without a description, which this merge can solve
SJD Willoughby (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I touched upon this in another similar AFD earlier today, but this particular case is a even bigger example of why a Merge to that article is improper. A throwaway adversary that appeared in one issue of a comic is not a "supporting character" of Iron Fist and Luke Cage. Listing the character on that page as if they were is outright misleading. Rorshacma (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That specific problem could be solved by choosing a different suitable merge target, List of Marvel Comics characters: I, or by changing the title of List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters to simpler (and less ambiguous?) List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist characters. Either way would be fine with me. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of where it is, a completely inconsequential character that made one single-issue appearance is too non-notable to be merged or mentioned anywhere. The very act of covering the character on Wikipedia in any capacity would create more notability for the character than actually exists. Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a different objection from "listing him under supporting characters is misleading". The fact that the character has received its own entry in the specialized Encyclopedia of Super-Villains (although that one differs somewhat in nature to our encyclopedia here) in my view gives him enough notability, obviously not for a stand-alone article, but for a two-sentence summary in a list. And that view is not based on personal evaluation of the primary material. It's also one common way lists work. And I don't see a benefit in not having this condensed information. Daranios (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so non-notable we honestly don't even need a mention. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters. BOZ (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters. Does not seem notable in itself, but target can be improved by content based on a secondary source present here. Daranios (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One-off characters aren't supporting characters and (generally) don't deserve a mention. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't deserve a mention and editors wouldn't search for "Impasse (comics)" anyway. Jontesta (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About one person does per day. So not many, but also not noone. And WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Daranios (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I do not see it necessary for this to exist and so without encyclopedic context my decision is to eliminate. Alon9393 (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: I. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This doesn't have enough coverage to support even a mention. But I'd accept a redirect and a brief mention for the sake of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided between Delete and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For those on the fence, merge is a valid outcome despite some contrary responses above - see this and this recent AFD. BOZ (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability has not been demonstrated. Cortador (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cortador: But notability is only a critereon for keeping stand-alone articles, not for article content. So why not look for WP:Alternatives to deletion, as the notability guideline suggests: Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages. Daranios (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T-Bag (Prison Break)

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

Fails WP:GNG not very much WP:SIGCOV mainly just routine episode coverage Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a number of reliable sources which talk about this character, displaying significant real world coverage.
Merge or weak keep. The current article state has too much WP:UNDUE plot and could be cut down to fit in the LoC no problem (most other main characters don't have standalone articles either). On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if there are enough sources to turn this topic into a Good Article, so it needn't stay merged forever. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ETA: And there is a Prison Break character with GA status (that I don't even remember from watching the show): Alexander Mahone. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sgeureka. I have my doubts about the sources, but a merge is a good WP:ATD, and allows it to be improved. (And potentially split even if I do not see evidence of it yet.) Shooterwalker (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time