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

Gianduja (commedia dell'arte)

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

I've removed the sources of this article because they weren't related to the article itself. The page should now be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacktheBrown (talk • contribs) 23:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the fate of this page, it was improper to delete the entire contents. I restored the last content that was cut, except its irrelevant reference. References used before cutdown by nom were: ^[1]^[2]^[3]. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Italian Trade Commission "Acqui or Brachetto d'Acqui (DOCG) Archived 2011-03-14 at the Wayback Machine" Italianmade.com Accessed: March 5, 2011.
^ Focus on Gianduia, Part 1.5: Orthography and Pronunciation
^ The 18th Century Stock Masks

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Theatre. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it:Gianduja has plenty of sources, including full length books. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense unreferenced stub, or move to Wiktionary. If you want to save this article. Nothing would be lost by deleting this stub. If this is a notable subject, then someone who care about it should write something coherent. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was a coherent article there previously. To the nominator: Next time I would suggest using other tags like {{citation needed}} if you're having trouble finding reliable sources to verify unsourced claims. ("Link doesn't work" is also not always a reason to delete references outright; often, those very links can be recovered via the Wayback Machine and other tools.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving. The Italian version of the article has many sources. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now re-expanded and fully sourced now. Book sources were easily found on the Internet Archive like this one. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep as "I've removed the sources, the page should now be deleted" is not a valid reason for deletion. What happened to WP:BEFORE? Even a cursory glance at the relevant Italian wikipedia page (and its extensive bibliography) makes it clear the topic is (extremely) notable. Kudos to Cielquiparle for improving the page. --Cavarrone 11:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of the Kirby series

AfDs for this article:

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

Following on from the recent List of Pokemon characters AfD, I've decided to come back to this one, which I tried AfDing previously. I withdrew due to misinterpreting a CSC guideline that was cited, which doesn't even apply (There clearly are some notable characters from this series, Kirby (character) and Meta Knight). Kirby as a series tends to reference its past a lot, but most of the "recurring characters" don't tend to have repeated major roles. With a few exceptions, most only play a notable role in one or two games at most, and are largely absent in most entries. The only game to really focus on its expanded cast that weren't just small cameos (Kirby Star Allies) even explicitly has each returning character be "representative" of a game they're largely associated with in the series. Similarly to the Pokemon debate, we have a small, consistent recurring cast, but the other side characters who do recur tend to be nowhere near as important and largely tied to their debut game.

And before we get into the nitty gritty, I did do a search for sources, and there is next to nothing discussing Kirby characters as a whole, which is needed in order to meet WP:LISTN. I'd argue WP:SIZESPLIT also isn't an issue per below.

In terms of this list, the only ones who tend to have consistent, recurring roles are Kirby, King Dedede, Meta Knight, Bandana Waddle Dee (and by extension, the Waddle Dees), and one or two debateable inclusions like Magolor. The rest tend to be tied to one or two games in particular (Like, for instance, Marx, who only has a large role in Kirby Super Star) or are only really here because they're notable in the anime series, Kirby Right Back At Ya!, which has its own list of characters and was previously determined to be a better place to keep the anime characters than this one. Beyond that, most of the bloat on this list is largely due to lots of trivial detail and cruft, with many entries listing off every single minor appearance or role in the series, which is frankly not needed, when all these characters really need is a brief summation of their plot role and, if any, their personality.

TLDR: Because there's no sourcing, and the characters themselves have very few major recurring entities among them, this list doesn't really serve much of a purpose, and is better off either removed or redirected to Kirby (series), which already contains a summary of the major four characters. Any characters really only noteworthy for a particular game or games should be redirected to those games instead, where they can be better covered given their more intrinsic ties to those games' plots and gameplay mechanics per WP:NOPAGE. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, Lists, and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - if individual games or shows do have notable cast lists, that's different, but this is a subjective mish-mash. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm not really familiar with any reception of the Kirby series' cast. As it were, there's only a few characters who I've observed individual reception for (Whispy Woods, Dark Matter, and King Dedede) who have no articles. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge into Kirby (series)#Characters. There is some useful information that is better sourced in this article than the main article. मल्ल (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cukie Gherkin. I'm not observing enough coverage for the minor characters of this series, per WP:GNG. The notable characters Kirby and Meta Knight have articles and are included in a template on all related articles. I wouldn't object to a slight expansion / merge to the section at Kirby_(series)#Characters. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eye of Agamotto

AfDs for this article:

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

Very niche fictional object, no evidence of WP:GNG for this topic. Pure plot summary and list of appearances, no analysis/reception. Per WP:ATD-R, maybe redirect this to Agamotto? PS. AfD 10 years ago was dominated by "arguments" like "important in-universe" (doubtful anyway), "no good merge candidate" (really?? It's in the title...) and "covered in dependent picture books calling themselves encyclopedias"). Not much help there... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor Strange. The item is very associated with him in universe and tends to be adapted with him, and what little mentions it discusses it as part of Strange. The redirect is valid and a likely search term so I'd definitely favor it over a deletion. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the mystical artifacts section of Features of the Marvel Universe in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Strange per Pokelego99 - As said, pretty much all coverage of the Eye in sources is in relation to Dr. Strange, so there is nothing to indicate it is independently notable, and per WP:NOPAGE would be best covered under the same article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Strange per all, where it's already covered. This doesn't really pass WP:GNG outside of its relationship with the character. I am open to other redirect targets and a slight merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serpent Crown

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

Very niche fictional object, no evidence of WP:GNG for this topic. Pure plot summary and list of appearances, no analysis/reception. Per WP:ATD-R, maybe redirect this to Namor, where this item is mentioned few times in the usual gargantuan plot summary there? Sigh _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Namor. Doesn't seem to have any serious coverage about it specifically, definitely not deserving of an individual page. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current article is just pure plot summary with no sources that would indicate it passes the WP:GNG, and searches are not turning up any additional significant coverage in reliable sources. I suppose I would not be opposed to redirecting to Namor, as it is already mentioned throughout that article, if that helps form a consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Namor. Most of the big details seem to be there, and there's not much that needs to be merged. Valid redirect target as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the mystical artifacts section of Features of the Marvel Universe in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Namor per all. It's already covered there and doesn't have separate WP:NOTABILITY. A light merge would be fine, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sourced added to the article today. BOZ (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Those added sources are either speculations (which ultimately proved to be untrue) from unreliable sources like WP:VALNET sites, or simple plot recaps where the crown appears to fill out a "list of appearances". None of them offer any actual reliably sourced, non-plot summary commentary or analysis that would be sufficient for establishing notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin's rings

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

Niche fictional object, little evidence of WP:GNG for this topic (there is 2021 ScreenRant: [1] and a weaker 2022 from SR as well: [2]). That said, they are mostly plot summaries anyway (and the odds are good they mostly rewrote Wikipedia and Fandom...); what we have is pure plot summary and list of appearances, no analysis/reception. Slight merge and redirect to Mandarin (character) would suffice instead of hard deletion, per WP:ATD-R. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mandarin (character), since they are very heavily associated with him and lack individual notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mandarin (character) per above. I am not seeing anything to indicate that they are independently notable to the Mandarin himself, and are already described in extreme detail at the target page. Rorshacma (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all. Doesn't pass WP:GNG on its own and sources appear to cover this in the context of the character. Support WP:ATD instead of outright deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norn Stones

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

Niche fictional object, no evidence of WP:GNG for this topic. Pure plot summary and list of appearances, no analysis/reception. PS. Item used by several characters, so there's no obvious redirect/merge, although maybe to Loki (Marvel Comics)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Goon characters

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

There are no sources in this article, little sources exist so most of these entries would be deleted. Therefore, it should be merged with the parent article: The Goon. See WP:FANCRUFT Easternsahara (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 July 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge into The_Goon#Main_characters per nom. मल्ल (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what makes sense to add to the main article section per मल्ल. Skynxnex (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

La Luchadora

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

Not a notable enough character to have an article, was featured for less than four months and never brought up again. Lemonademan22 (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 July 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Wrestling. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Extremely minor WWE gimmick/storyline that has zero significant coverage in reliable, non-primary sources, making it a failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deeply unfamiliar with article's subject and indeed, the entire topic area, but happy to respect the wikipedia norms on this subject if they exist. But the above claim that only PRIMARY sources mention the character failed to pass verification. A very cursory search at Google Books would seem to suggest multiple non-PRIMARY sources discuss the character. Feoffer (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What I said was that there is no significant coverage in reliable, non-primary sources. As in, the gimmick may be mentioned in non-primary sources, but they do not constitute the significant coverage required to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep on same grounds as Feoffer mentioned. I also believe this AfD to be an attempt to win an editing dispute regarding El Grande Americano and thus falls foul of one of the grounds for WP:SK. AceSevenFive (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is accusatory, as well as false, and this user originally had brought up La Luchadora, not myself. I also believe this user wants to keep this article so I cannot object the draft in the user's sandbox. Lemonademan22 (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the project has other articles about characters, I don't think La Luchadora is notable. It was a few appearences, no coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE. It was a minor character during a storyline. Not enough coverage around the character. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalie Octavius

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

Fictional character does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILMCHAR. Sources linked go to articles discussing Doctor Octopus (which is not the same subject as the the film character and fictional husband) and do not mention the subject. It looks like the character was created for the film adaptation and does not exist outside that one movie with minimal scene time. Nothing outside of blogs and Fandom can be found to establish notability. Redirecting to either Otto Octavius (film character) or Spider-Man 2 would be a good ATD. cyberdog958^Talk 03:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Comics and animation. cyberdog958^Talk 03:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Spider-Man 2 (and/or Otto Octavius (film character)). I did see only brief occurences in serious secondary sources, and sadly the Women in refrigerators commentary is unsourced. But a slight expansion at the target is a good WP:Alternative to deletion in my view. Daranios (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would agree with merging, but since everything on the page is unsourced (because the sources used do not mention the subject), none of the prose should be used. Also, the page creator themselves state I've only really got speculation and pulling writing tropes out of my behind on the talk page of the article which makes me think that it is largely original research. cyberdog958^Talk 13:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize that the second link also does not mention the character. I still think Spider-Man 2#Plot deserves a sentence on Rosie's role (although there's a half-sentence at Cast). Daranios (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spider-Man 2 - It is somewhat rare for a minor character that only appears briefly in a single piece of fiction to have enough reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG, and I am seeing nothing in searches that would indicate that this one is one of those rare cases that do. While I do not oppose redirecting to the main film article as a reasonable search term, Merging anything would not be appropriate because the only two sources being used here, aside from having reliability issues, do not even mention the character as far as I can see. Rorshacma (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Daranios. I don't see WP:SIGCOV either but this is partially covered at the main article about the fiction, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Otto Octavius (film character), since this character is unmentioned at Spider-Man 2. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - She actually is listed in the cast/character list at Spider-Man 2, but under the name "Rosie" Octavius. Her being already listed as a character there is the main reason I advocated for that being the redirect target. Rorshacma (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'm unopposed to the redirect target being the film. That's a mistake on my part, thank you for the catch! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Jinrei

AfDs for this article:

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

This character flat out doesn't meet notability standards; most of what's here is primary sources, or very questionable ones. A WP:BEFORE doesn't inspire confidence either. Proceeding here after WP:BLAR was reversed. Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was made on the premise that there were youtube sources from notable gamers earlier, so some of these sources have been removed. The page has been significantly revised after this to conform with the Notability guidelines of Wikipedia. To answer this issue, after I deleted some of the primary sources, a lot of notable secondary sources from prominent authors and publishers were introduced to establish credence. This was done after reading and double-checking the policies and guidelines. Marugamirica (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does the WP:BLAR amount to very limited information to learn about the character, it also lacks proper sources itself, and does poorly to present the diversity of the 60+ roster in the Tekken series. Furthermore, the lack of encyclopedic coverage as presented in these Articles for deletion are refuted by the fact that multiple books and secondarily sourced reading materials do present encyclopedic profiles for most of the Tekken characters as of 2025. Marugamirica (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The character of Wang Jinrei also presents at the reception, a resulting increase in interest in martial arts films and internal martial arts training, as explained in the revisions of the article. Marugamirica (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking your sources here, but I feel some of these aren't even discussing the character or just barely? Xing Yi Health Maintenance and Internal Strength Development does not even seem to mention Tekken, or Wang, and looking at the pages listed unless this publication is somehow different (it matches the one shown on Google, which I can't preview).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mention of the character, and there are different editions to the book. What is considered as bare is subjective. Notice the Christie Monteiro page is filled with sources that briefly mention her in articles, but that is besides the point since important information is to be found. That page was allowed anyway though lesser in reliable sources. Collectively the information paint a picture that cannot be found in this cloistered page Characters of the Tekken series. Marugamirica (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that's not how WP:SIGCOV works...can you possibly screenshot the pages you're citing and load them to imgur for verification, and link others where possible here?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Looking through reception, I see most sources have some issue or another. The first two sources are Game Rant, a WP:VALNET source and Event Hubs, an unreliable source. The next two sources are a guide, followed by a WP:USERGEN source. The next two sources are a YouTube source (that appears broken?) and a broken source that isn't listed on WP:VG/RS, but is likely not reliable. The final source of the first paragraph is also USERGEN. In the second paragraph, the source is not listed on VG/RS and is written by an anonymous user. Every source that I can actually check is either broken, user-generated, or unreliable/likely unreliable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Define broken because the videos work and are presentable. It isn’t necessarily true that the YouTube sources are unreliable by virtue of being from Youtube either, these sources are from the most influential players in Tekken. Also may I kindly ask how you have come to perceive the sources as WP:USERGEN? I checked your link to the article and the examples in that section are Facebook, Instagram, and Wikipedia itself. I look at the sources for Wang Jinrei, and there is clearly nothing even remotely close to the examples mentioned in your linked article, so I urge you to reconsider your assessment to this page. To the earlier reply of User:Kung Fu Man, yes I can supply or replace with more sources that can be available online if needed. I will be happy to comply and supply sources beyond Event Hubs as well.Marugamirica (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[3] This is user-generated content, IGN.com/wikis content is not usable, even though the content has contributions from IGN editors. IGN.com/wikis content often has edits from users, and whether the articles used here are not cannot be verified (for example, Dadul Wangdi does not appear to be a member of staff, and I can't tell who "Ichs77" could be). It should also be noted that, at the time of writing my grievances with this page, the broken links were indeed broken until being fixed in a later edit. Most importantly, however, I have only addressed the poor sources used; at present, Den of Geek is the only fully reliable source used in the Reception section that I am able to actually verify, everything else is either a YouTube video (pro players are not considered reliable sources unless their perspectives are discussed through reliable sources). As far as the content goes, it's extremely light and insubstantial. If you cut out content that just explains how the combo works, the actual first paragraph becomes much smaller. Further, why is his Heavy Power Punch combo given so much discussion? The way I see it, the punch seems to be the subject of discussion more than the character himself! - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not confuse the two concepts. A move is part of the character. The moves make the character's gameplay, they are not mutually exclusive, they explain what made the character gameplay-wise very respected in the series. The discussion was mostly on characterization and storyline up to that point. This punch is one of his basic and well-known movesets that are even shared with a couple other strong characters, which is why it helps describe his identity as a character, so they are not separable. See Kazuya Mishima and notice many articles discuss one move, his Electrics. This is because for many gamers one may find in IGN and other sites, the gameplay is arguably more valuable than his characterization, and we cannot just focus on that alone to explain all facets of this character.

Also you asked if the YouTube videos are reliable sources? I will be happy to share information on this matter. Take the User TheMainManSwe, he is not just a gamer but also a tournament organizer who has seen the inside of the fighting game industry. His perspective has been well regarded by many people, including Tekken Executive Producer Katsuhiro Harada himself. The Canadian company Score Media and Gaming has a video where they kept using TheMainManSwe's videos for their information on their Youtube channel without his consent, but were allowed to anyway, which goes to show his standing in the gaming community.^[1] Knee a multiple time EVO champion got into a debate with him for a myriad of reasons, and TheMainManSwe has been featured at the EVO tournaments by the main commentators Rip and Tasty Steve, since he is well-known in the fighting game community beyond just playing the game well.

As for the broken links, they are not "broken" per se, the video is out there, again it depends how one should define the term "broken," the title just came before the link hence the change, but a quick search of the title on YouTube, will lead you there, and that is arguing on the surface level anyway. Let's kindly not split hairs here. Again, I would like for you to understand that it is best to avoid differentiating his movesets from the character, since the gameplay needs more reflection, and this goes for all Tekken characters. This is not just pertaining to Wang and his characterization, otherwise it looks like a Biopic of a movie role rather than an actual article about someone from a game/E-Sport, which Tekken is primarily known to be. Finally, the IGN content is checked by editors, nor did you try to establish who Dadul Wangdi happens to be, or how does he have insubstantial connection to IGN. Either way, there are other sources for the Tekken 5 movesets that he has, and all this information is available when one actually plays the game, it's in practice mode, that is why the visuals were best shown through these sites. In fact, the video of his movesets is merely electronic evidence made from the same impression- it is literally in the video game. Thus, the source is the video game, and this will not violate the Original Document Rule since it was posted with the same impression and intent as the original game itself. To clarify further, in practice mode, you just press the simulation for each move, and the CPU will display how it is done, that is all the video is about. No original research or new information was added beyond what Bandai Namco/Namco placed in the game. However, if necessary, I will be happy to find more sources that reflect the frame data of his moves that can be found by playing the game. Hope this helps, cheers. Marugamirica (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in articles about his moveset, and it's not my obligation to establish who Dadul Wangdi is. I won't be replying further, as I believe my point has been adequately made. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not interested about his moveset, other readers might be, again because gameplay is important and informative for many people who want to try to play the character, not just discuss his backstory and characterization. Perception is multifaceted. Why do you refuse to discuss further, and the issue on Dadul Wangdi was something you brought up so shouldn't it be established with clear and convincing evidence before the source is discarded? The lack of quantum of evidence on these matters does not mean there is closure at all to this point. Marugamirica (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question about Youtube, see WP:RSPYT. Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Seems lacking in significant coverage and improperly sourced. The article recreator also appears unclear with how reliable sources on Wikipedia work; this is just one simple read away and can clear up many issues. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with that, it may be a simple read but in actual practice to topics such as these, it becomes more nuanced than that, such as in the case of the videos for example. In terms of reliability, in the page Wikipedia:Applying reliability guidelines, it is stated that "A full consideration of a source doesn't look just at the source, but also how others perceive it." It also says, that the reliability of a source depends on both the source and the claim, with the ultimate criterion being the likelihood that the claim is true. It then states, "that doesn't mean that an editor's opinion of the truth carries any weight. Instead, we look to several properties of the source as proxy indicators of its trustworthiness." My point being circumstances indicating trustworthiness refer to credibility. But sometimes professional gamers who perceived this nuance and in perceiving can make known their perception to others become trustworthy sources. Some like TheMainManSwe have been cited by digital media/news companies already. The expertise is a factor in determining what an expert opinion may be, and some information on gameplay as discussed earlier will not always be found in an article by a known newspaper, ex. The New York Times. These larger newspapers will not be discussing gameplay, and that is why the videos may serve an invaluable asset to understanding a character. I completely agree with your point that finding more coverage from large media company articles is best as the page suggests due to verifiability, but certain topics can be better covered by professional gamers who spend time studying the game and sharing it with an audience. They are also scrutinized and fact-checked when they become well-known, such as TheMainManSwe on his points about powerful combos that can be applied in-game. It is these nuanced takes that help people fathom the diverse array of characters in the Tekken series. If I may, I will stil try to supply more available reliable sources when needed. Marugamirica (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we assume that these Youtubers are subject-matter experts and count as reliable sources, which may be a big stretch because "cited by media" may not rise to the "works published by reliable publications" necessary to fulfill WP:SPS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is still failed since any critical commentary on the character besides pure gameplay aspects is sourced to either unreliable sources or trivial coverage.

Of course I know you'll probably continue to argue I am wrong, and that's the problem. WP:IDHT is grounds for sanctions if one refuses to actually listen to policy based arguments. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to clarify with you that I am not arguing about commentary on non-gameplay on your comment. I have already stated that not all the sites on it would have poor secondary sources. Some sources on his characterization do fit the bill of such description. Nor is it safe for you to presume that I want to continue to make you feel wrong. I earnestly want to improve this article and Wikipedia. I have no intention to violate rules, and want to comply with the guidelines, hence this discussion I want to partake in. Nobody is violating rules just discussing clarifications, since that is the goal of this opened forum anyway. Now, as for the threat of sanctions, that should not be the goal in regulating and constricting the potential flow of this discussion either. Since after all this is a free discussion page to hash out issues, and I have been completely complying with some of these older comments by making better edits on the main article per the suggestions.

Of course now, it becomes unjust that other characters get more coverage and their own pages due to non-gameplay reasons, while the gameplay is actually a small part of their prominence (such as the meager content on Leo Kliesen or the fact that the Josie Rizal page is almost sourced from one country but there is no reliably sourced information on her gameplay either- as compared to the page of Wang Jinrei which features both and constantly revsied citations to improve on the page), but those who play the game see it differently and would like to learn more information on the characters actually known for their gameplay. Wang also is known for having one of the best storylines too, so in all fronts there is a peaked interest. On that note, I feel it is more unsafe to disregard all the information in the page of Wang Jinrei and redirect it to small footnotes in the Characters page, when such information can be useful when revised and improved instead (which takes work but benefits everyone) of being completely left empty to those who could still read it and learn from it. Please do not interpret or feel that you are being attacked, targeted, or offended, as it is for mere clarification only and not to violate the rules. I am respectfully pleading my arguments and that is all, it is not my call how it is decided. I respect and see your points sir. Thank you. Marugamirica (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "unfair" as Wikipedia is a general knowledge encyclopedia, it has different criteria than the Tekken Wiki.

A character can be notable solely for their gameplay but this is far rarer than for other aspects of them. In this case the article doesn't make an argument his gameplay is unique and special not just in Tekken, but in video games in general in some way. It's just a rote list of moves. Most of its "importance" argument comes from the character's depiction and its sourcing is poor. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tekken characters per nom. Nothing really worth keeping here and very little in the way of reliable sourcing for the character. I would advise the article creator to stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, since you can very much get in trouble for that. Your point has already been made extensively, it's best to let it rest so others can chime into the discussion. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tekken characters per Pokelego999. I wouldn't mind a slight merge per WP:ATD. There isn't enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of In the Night Garden... characters

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

Do we really need a separate article for all the characters of an already pretty obscure show? Sure, there's precedent for articles like this when the show is both immensely popular and has a lot of main characters. But here, the show in question (In the Night Garden...) is not that well known (so is definitely going to have some sourcing issues regarding the show's content itself) and the number of main characters is lower than some other articles on cartoon shows that don't have a separate page for characters. As an example, see Oddbods. It has 7 main characters (8 counting the newly introduced one). While In the Night Garden... has 5 main characters, yet Oddbods doesn't have a separate page for its characters. The sourcing is terrible too, basically a big mess of WP:OR violations with only one source. This article shouldn't exist and would be a whole lot better if merged with In the Night Garden... While there's a lot of minor characters, so does basically every other show? Does a one-time character appearing only in a single episode but playing a major role in that specific episode count as a minor character? What's the threshold here? Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 11:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: this article has had multiple issues for quite a long time, and has been a common source of vandalism. The chances of the aforementioned issues being resolved in the future seems very unlikely. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 12:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re-merge and redirect to In the Night Garden...#Characters These character descriptions (which use one source I suspect is just there to provide an WP:ITSSOURCED argument so they're free to overdetail train car descriptions and character's laundry habits on their own) are too long for what is a simple children's program and need to be two sentences at maximum and returned to the main article. Nathannah • 📮 19:23, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations

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

Clear WP:NLIST failure - being a team or organization in a Marvel comic is so incredibly common that this is not a unique aspect, nor does the article demonstrate sources that discuss Marvel teams and organizations as a whole. Overall, this is a list more fitting for the Marvel Database wiki and should not be used as a free "dumping ground" for otherwise non-notable teams. Even putting them together, they remain non-notable and only relevant to comic-book superfans. The MCU list article also seems to have the same problem, but due to WP:TRAINWRECK concerns, I am nominating this first. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me there seem to be a lot of problems with the nomination rationale with regard to WP:SKCRIT no 3. Being common is to my knowledge not a reason for deletion. We do have things like Lists of companies or Lists of animals, which are arguably much more common than the organizations here. We do have a lot of blue links, so this most likely is a list useful for navigation in accordance with WP:LISTPURP-NAV and WP:CLN. Such lists may even be kept without fulfilling WP:LISTN, depending on consensus. "dumping ground" and "more fitting for the Marvel Database wiki" might be the case if the goal were to collect all teams and organizations. On the other hand, it is totally policy-based to included entities which are not notable enough for a stand-alone article but still do have some coverage or encyclopedic purpose based on editors' disgression and consensus, as specified in WP:ATD-M. "nor does the article demonstrate sources that discuss Marvel teams and organizations as a whole" I believe is correct, but that's again no grounds for deletion according to WP:ARTN, i.e. current article content is not the decisive factor. So before getting into the abovementioned consideration based on the navigation purpose, I would like to know the result of the ~~required~~ WP:BEFORE search on secondary sources not yet in the article. And from the experience that comics have been increasingly analyzed in academia I'd ask to include the Google Scholar search in this consideration. Daranios (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That falls under WP:SOURCESEARCH, or maybe just WP:ADHOMINEM, as you are implying the sources exist and a WP:BEFORE was not performed, without actually stating where they are. You could just actually find the sources before casting aspersions. I certainly don't think all or even most of these teams are notable even as part of a list, and they are largely sourced to primary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: I apologize, I did not mean to be WP:ADHOMINEM! I don't know yet if there are sources. But as far as I can see you have only commented on sources in the article. As in any deletion discussion involving notability concerns it would really be helpful to get some elaboration on the results of the WP:BEFORE search of the nominator, as a starting point for their own searches of any participant in the discussion. Lack of such elaboration in my view in turn gets into WP:JUSTNOTABLE territory. Daranios (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per one of the comments made by @Daranios:. Plus, a lot of redirects go to this page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PERX and WP:POPULARPAGE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the importance of redirects pointing here, rather than being a WP:POPULARPAGE argument (which is based on view statistics, not directly involved with redirects), is that a) there was consensus at several other discussions that a redirect here is the way to go, which should count for something with regard to the existence of this list and b) that this list does fulfill one of the basic functions of lists at Wikipedia as outlined in WP:CSC, 2., (as well as WP:ATD-M) and thus is very much in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. Daranios (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep according to WP:SKCRIT no 3.: As discussed above I don't see a policy-based rationale for deletion in the nomination, except for the pure statement "Clear WP:NLIST failure". As this is not at all obvious to me, I believe this falls under WP:JUSTNOTABLE. On the other hand this list fulfills a navigational purpose for encyclopedic content on this topic elsewhere on Wikipedia, as well as being a place for encyclopedic content on the topic which does not lend itself to stand-alone articles, as outlined in WP:ATD-M. It is also a well-warranted WP:SPLIT from Marvel Universe, within which teams and organizations play a vital role, as was also acknowledged in the nomination. Daranios (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is "not obvious to you", it does not make it not a policy-based reason, just a policy-based reason you personally think is wrong. Well, not unless you were Galactus and controlled reality. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So why not just fix the WP:JUSTNOTABLE problem in the nomination as explained in that essay on the deletion policy, as I've requested earlier? Simply claiming something does not make it a reality either (except for Galactus who just makes it so of course...). Daranios (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to answer more directly, yes, the nomination contains a reference to a policy. But it does not contain a rationale why this should apply here which is intelligible to me. And if it is not clear to me, then most likely "Clear failure", i.e. not needing further explanation, is not the case. Daranios (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Corps

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

Niche fictional organization from Marvel universe. Article fails WP:GNG and is just a plot summary and list of appearances; no reception or analysis found, nothing useful in my BEFORE. WP:ATD-R suggests we can pipe this to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations, maybe merge the lead there? (It's unreferenced, unfortunately) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Organizations. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Marvel teams list clearly fails WP:NLIST, so there is nowhere rational to merge or redirect. The article itself also fails notability. Marvel Wiki is that-a-way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The basics should be easily verifiable with (probably among many others) Smart Pop Explains Marvel Movies and TV Shows, p. 129-130, and Marvelous Mythology, p. 210. There is a small bit of commentary in the context of depiction of institutions in the MCU in "Time to Work for a Living: The Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Organized Superhero. ". Daranios (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am still feeling like WP:INDISCRIMINATE is failed by the article, so it doesn't change my opinion. There's also no single place that would make sense to redirect the term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's also no single place that would make sense to redirect the term may be the case if List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations were deleted, but only if no alternative fitting target can be found. So while we can continue the discussion here, it would be great if it were to remain open until that's decided at that deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to that, as if the list was decided to be notable, then it would absolutely be a viable place for redirection. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Collecting more sources: Brief commentary in The Twenty-First-Century Western, p. 261 (plus some plot summary p. 262, 264). "Beyond the Law: What is so “Super” About Superheroes and Supervillains?": The Nova Corps representing the state, including negative aspects; importance in the MCU. Daranios (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can only see a snippet of Super-héros ! - La puissance des masques, but it provides confirmation of the parallel to Green Lantern Corps by a non-Valnet source. And a really weird fact, Guardians of the Galaxy is listed as "Highest death toll in a superhero movie" because of the deaths of the entired Nova Corps in the Guiness Book of World Records. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nova (Richard Rider), who seems to be the primary Nova character. Given the bulk of Nova's notability is due to this character, and the coverage for the Corps is non-existent, it's likely better to redirect here, where the Corps are very relevant as part of the Nova character's backstory. Would also be safer on the chance the teams and organizations list is redirected or deleted via the ongoing Afd. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge parts as appropriate to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations (deletion discussion is pending), Nova (Richard Rider), and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe groups. Not sure about the best redirect target. Commentary has been found! It is so far quite limited, but coverage is not non-existent. Did not yet have time to search further, so casting my intermediate !vote. Interestingly, the commentary so far focusses on the MCU incarnation. Daranios (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing a slew of other deletion nominationts that was as much time as I wanted to spend in searching for sources. As only short secondary sources turned up which can likely fit into another (list other otherwise) article, a merge is fine with me. Daranios (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per Pokelego999. Limited coverage that doesn't pass WP:GNG, but there is a clear WP:ATD for the character this is associated with. Let's strive for compromise and consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations (deletion discussion is pending), Nova (Richard Rider) 200.46.55.53 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because a number of editors are recommending a Merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations and this article has been brought to AFD. Was there a second possible merge target article if this one gets deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: If it should come to that, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe groups has been suggested as an alternative target once, Nova (Richard Rider) twice. Daranios (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time

^ Video on YouTube

[Italian-made-1] Italian Trade Commission "Acqui or Brachetto d'Acqui (DOCG) Archived 2011-03-14 at the Wayback Machine" Italianmade.com Accessed: March 5, 2011.

[2] Focus on Gianduia, Part 1.5: Orthography and Pronunciation

[3] The 18th Century Stock Masks

[4] Video on YouTube

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]