Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Science fiction or fantasy. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Science fiction and fantasy|~~~~}} 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 Science fiction or fantasy. 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
Related deletion sorting

Science fiction and fantasy

[edit]
Eye of Agamotto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

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]
Serpent Crown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

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]
Mandarin's rings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

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]
Norn Stones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

Armies of Death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find any sigcov. Redirect to Fighting Fantasy (the series it is in)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Companion Pieces: Fantasy Furnishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A TTRPG product that does not appear to be notable. There is a single short "capsule review" of the product included in the article, but that is not enough to pass the WP:GNG on its own, and searches are not bringing up any kind of significant coverage (or any kind of coverage at all) in reliable sources on either the product or the company that produced it. As the company that made it is also non-notable and has no article, I cannot find any valid WP:ATD for this non-notable product. Rorshacma (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unless someone offers to work on this, I'm reluctant to userfy or draftify. Can a suitable redirect target be found?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 07:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dalekmania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A documentary film on Dalek films from the 1960s, named after the Dalekmania of the 1960s (Covered in the Dalek article). Having extensively researched the actual Dalekmania after which this is named, I could not find a single source actually discussing this documentary; any sources discussing Dalekmania discuss the actual Dalekmania, not this production. The actual content of the article is just a very opinionated summary of the actual documentary's contents, and the only sources verify what the actual Dalekmania was. No indication of notability at all, and a clear GNG failure; I'd suggest redirecting to the Dalekmania section of the Dalek article as an AtD, given the actual Dalekmania is substantially more notable even if only discussed as part of a larger article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Contribs) 16:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going by this discussion at the Reliable Sources Notieboard here sections 8 and 21, I would say it is reliable. Note that it is now defunct so the site may no longer have the editorial information it once had. Also I read in another discussion that it has been accepted in GA reviews. New on Video is a section in The Times newspaper (UK) which I don't have access to, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Super soldier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page has lots of text about sci-fi ("Fiction", "Fictional Examples"), but the useful parts ("U.S. Army", "China") are abysmally small, and it has no "Real Examples" at all. No list of helpful genes and mutations, no list of currently-produced implants superior to natural body parts, no list of methods of editing genes (especially of currenty-living humans), no currently living artificially augmented individuals, etc. In other words - pile of nonsense without meaningful contents. Even russian Wikipedia had list of genes. If someone wanted to see sci-fi supersoldiers - he could go to other thematic wikis. Wikipedia is mainly for the real things, which page doesn't describe. As such, this page doesn't belong to Wikipedia. So it should be either deleted or cleaned-up. --Ejkohojkjkohokjh (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page has lots of text about sci-fi ("Fiction", "Fictional Examples"), but the useful parts ("U.S. Army", "China") are abysmally small, and it has no "Real Examples" at all. No list of helpful genes and mutations, no list of currently-produced implants superior to natural body parts, no list of methods of editing genes (especially of currenty-living humans), no currently living artificially augmented individuals, etc. In other words - pile of nonsense without meaningful contents. Even russian Wikipedia had list of genes.

If someone wanted to see sci-fi supersoldiers - he could go to other thematic wikis. Wikipedia is mainly for the real things, which page doesn't describe. As such, this page doesn't belong to Wikipedia. So it should be either deleted or cleaned-up. --Ejkohojkjkohokjh (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Power Within (1979 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unsold TV pilot that is almost entirely unremarked and unnotable. A source was added from Unsold TV pilots: the almost complete guide to everything you never saw on TV, 1955-1990 which is an impressive tome with plot summaries on exactly what it says. That source contains a short plot summary and cast list but nothing else. There is also a second source, Shock Cinema, which has a longer plot summary and some criticism in a review of the showing on ABC (a TV channel) on Friday May 11 1979.

Now GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. On the number of sources, the guidance is, there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. Significant coverage must be more than trivial. The first source should be excluded because cataloguing all the TV pilots that no-one knows about, and providing only their plot summary is not significant coverage, and if it were, it leads to the undesirable outcome that everything that no-one was interested in is notable, because it is catalogued. That also fails per WP:NOT because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection, and to be notable under WP:N a page must pass both GNG and also not be excluded under WP:NOT

That leaves the second source, which is a single proper review of the two shows that were shown on ABC television on a single night in 1979. The review speak to why it was unsold, and is SIGCOV, but prima facie it is not notable. If we have a page about unsold Aaron Spelling shows (or just his shows generally) we can consider a redirect, but there is nothing notable about this one, and a single review of a single night's programming does not meet the multiple requirement of GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Williams, Gail (1979-05-11). "Television Review: The Power Within". The Hollywood Reporter. p. 7. ProQuest 2471822321.

      The review provides 264 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Although the premise is far-fetched, producer Alan S. Godfrey and writer Edward J. Lakso have come up with a surprisingly entertaining 90-minute tele-feature. ... Director John Llewellyn Moxey wrings as much excitement out of the material as possible. He also educes convincingly earnest performances from Joe Rassulo as Darrow's pal and Joanna Mills as his NASA doctor. Art directors Tom Trimble and Paul Sylos created sets full of panels with blinking lights and there's also some fancy flying by Art Scholl to enhance this Aaron Spelling production. Aaron Spelling and Douglas S. Cramer were executive producers, and E. Duke Vincent supervising producer for "The Power Within"."

    2. Bok (1979-05-23). "Television Reviews: The Power Within". Variety. Vol. 295, no. 3. p. 68. ProQuest 1401357617.

      The review provides 223 words of coverage about the subject.

      The review notes: ""The Power Within" pilot was of the "$6 Million Man" genre, with a normal guy becoming outfitted with superhuman talents because of some fluke. In this instance, stunt pilot Art Hindle was struck by lightning and survived with the ability to project electric waves from his hands. ... If it all sounds like kid stuff, it was indeed, with performances no better than they had to be. "Power" gave the impression that the "$6 Million" genre's appeal was already exhausted when that skein left primetime and further attempts to tap the vein will be fruitless unless the star can accomplish more spectacular tricks than Hindle was provided with in this opus."

    3. Thomas, Kevin (1979-05-11). "TV Movie Reviews: ABC Airs Double Feature Tonight". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2025-07-05. Retrieved 2025-07-05 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: ""The Power Within," an amusingly absurd comic-book-type adventure, and "The Night Rider," a tedious revenge western, comprise the ABC Friday Night Movie Double Feature, which begins tonight at 8. Both are clearly pilots. ... All of this, which also involves pretty Susan Howard as an aeromedical research scientist and Joe Rassulo as Hindle's understandably perplexed pal, is as silly as it sounds, but writer Edward J. Lasko and director John Llewellyn Moxey knowingly play "The Power Within" consistently straight but fast. The result is mindless fun, escapist fare that works if you let it."

    4. Less significant coverage:
      1. Marill, Alvin H. (1980). Movies Made for Television: The Telefeature and the Mini-series, 1964–1979. Farncombe, Godalming, Surrey: LSP Books. p. 311. ISBN 0-85321-081-0. Retrieved 2025-07-05 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "A prospective pilot about a daredevil flyer, barnstorming for county fairs, who becomes a human dynamo after being struck by lightning and is menaced by enemy agents determined to find out the secret of his incredible strength. This was called Power Man not only in production but in all publicity and in TV Guide ads virtually until moments before its initial airing."

      2. Goldberg, Lee (1991). Unsold TV Pilots: The Almost Complete Guide to Everything You Never Saw on TV. New York: Citadel Press. p. 47. ISBN 0-8065-1242-3. Retrieved 2025-07-05 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "This pilot went through many titles, but under any name, it would still be the same old story about a man who, thanks to a freak accident, acquires superpowers which he then uses to fight crime. Art Hindle is a decorated Vietnam hero who is struck by lightning, emerges with X-ray vision and the power to shoot electric bolts from his fingers, and takes on secret missions for this father, an Air Force general."

      3. Halliwell, Leslie (1985) [1980]. Halliwell's Television Companion (2 ed.). London: Paladin Books. p. 496. ISBN 0-586-08525-4. Retrieved 2025-07-05 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "An unhappy young man is full of electrical energy because his mother was exposed to radiation. You'd think there'd be a comic strip series in a hero who can shoot lightning from his fingertips, but this busted pilot bungles even that."

      4. Terrace, Vincent (1981). Television, 1970–1980. San Diego: A. S. Barnes & Company. p. 271. ISBN 0-498-02577-2. Retrieved 2025-07-05 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "Pilot (Adventure). The story of Chris Darrow, a young daredevil pilot who acquires incredible powers after a freak accident: during an electrical storm, Darrow is struck by lightning and transformed into a virtual human dynamo, energy he uses to battle evil. (It is explained that before Darrow's birth, his mother had been exposed to an accidental overdose of radiation, which had been absorbed by Chris, and years later saved his life when struck by the lightning.)"

      5. Schwartz, Carol A. (1997). Videohound's Sci-Fi Experience: Your Quantum Guide to the Video Universe. Detroit: Visible Ink Press. p. 210. ISBN 0-7876-0615-4. Retrieved 2025-07-05 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "An electrified stuntman finds he can send electrical shocks from his hands and becomes the victim of a kidnapping plot."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Power Within to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 3 sources of "significant coverage" from Cunard are all from May 1979. These are just reviews of something that showed once on ABC television on the night of Friday 11 May 1979. This is WP:ROUTINE coverage. It is coverage of the event of the showing as happens for every TV show. If we accepted this as a demonstration of notability, then every show is notable by dint of being shown on TV. But that is not, in fact, notability. To be notable, there must be coverage other than the TV reviews of the night's viewing. We don't have that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage. A television film is not an event. The relevant notability guideline for a television film is Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles, which says:

The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The link to the main article explains each criterion. A topic might be considered notable even if it only satisfies some of the criteria. Conversely, even if a topic is presumed to satisfy all of the criteria, group consensus may still determine that it does not qualify as a stand-alone article.

The Power Within meets Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles through having received significant coverage in two reviews on 11 May 1979 and one review 12 days later on 23 May 1979. The reviews were published in The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and the Los Angeles Times, which are all major publications. Cunard (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The showing of a television movie is an event. The coverage of it is routine in the same way any ephemeral coverage of an event is. Once again, if you take only the reviews of the actual showing that are from the same time as the event of its showing, this does not demonstrate notability. If it did, then everything shown on television would automatically be notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two reviews are enough to keep ANY film article, whether or not they were only reviewed at the time of initial release. See WP:NFILM. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in NFILM says this. NFILM has a set of SNG additional criteria, and this unsold film meets none of them. NFILM also refers to GNG but never says two reviews are enough. GNG says, of the multiple criterion: There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. But most telling, NFILM says,

Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include ... "capsule reviews", ...

Also listing plot summaries. These are all plot summaries and capsule reviews. The supposed three best there are all contemporary with the pilot's only ever showing in May 1979. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews that provide 264 and 223 words of coverage about the subject go well beyond capsule reviews. The reviews provide critical analysis and go beyond providing plot summaries. Cunard (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is 1-2 paragraphs generally, which is a capsule review. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to access the Variety source from this provided link [10] nor can I turn it up. It does not work from Wikipedia library nor my institutional account. Could you check this please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link works for me. Cunard (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting "document unavailable" (although it names the document). Could you tell me the search term that yielded the hit - because, for some reason, I can't seem to find it in search either. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for "The Power Within" Moxey. Cunard (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but still not turning it up. That search term gave me two hits, neither being the subject. I don't see what is different. I'll come back to it later. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Cunard. The three sources they call "substantial" are (even if barely) more than capsule reviews and form a sufficient basis to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But they all date from May 1979, the only date this was ever shown. Surely if that demonstrated notability, then everything ever shown is notable, because they all have such a review. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    then everything ever shown is notable, because they all have such a review – I have two responses to this: (1) not all television films have received reviews in major publications and (2) the policy WP:NOTPAPER is applicable. Cunard (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On your two points (1) I disagree. Everything shown gets such reviews. Note that the first two of your reviews are about that night's programming, such as is common and routing in many papers, especially in the 1970s. Everything got these, but (2) is where I strongly disagree. Arguing that we can host pages on anything because of NOTPAPER is an ideological point, and misrepresents that part of the NOT guideline. It is also refuted by the fact that we already agreed that MERGE would be a good result here, so space is not the issue. The issue is WP:NOPAGE and WP:NOTABILITY and whether readers are best served by giving this unknown pilot a page of its own, or telling them about it in a wider context. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that everything gets reviews as I have come across television series at AfD and proposed deletion that have not received reviews.

    we already agreed that MERGE would be a good result here – I don't agree that a merge would be a good result here. WP:NOPAGE says:

    When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic).

    A merge of this television film to the director's article, John Llewellyn Moxey, does not better "help readers understand it" and does not provide "more context". A merge would lead either to the the director's article having undue weight about the film or to the loss of sourced encyclopedic information about the film. Cunard (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the sources identified by Cunard are sufficient enough to make this article pass WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Updating my !vote in light of the new sources: While they don't provide a large amount of commentary, those bits we have together with plot summary can be used to write a short stand-alone article that does not run afoul of WP:ALLPLOT. Having those several small commentaries at John Llewellyn Moxey would be possible by somewhat akward. Thanks as usual to Cunard for finding more sources! Daranios (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of Pokémon anime characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

let's follow along with the list of pokémon characters' second afd discussion!!

this list currently has a few sprinkles of usable material drowning in a pile of fancruft. from some relatively quick looking, i've come across three main issues

  • with the exceptions of ash, brock, misty, and serena, the most notable characters seem to mostly be notable in the context of their appearances in the games (and we all know how that turned out), as opposed to the anime. i couldn't find too many sources on their anime appearances beyond what's already here
  • on that note, most of the sources i ended up finding, and the ones that ended up here, are primary, unusable, or not worth much for notability. this includes credits lists (tv tokyo, corocoro), voice actors' own sites, social media (facebook and twitter), and interviews (some on youtube, some being seemingly unreliable podcasts). thus, there's nearly actual sigcov to even warrant this list in the first place
from my count, exactly 31 of the 72 sources here would count for that, and about 11 of those are pretty insubstantial, leaving this entire list with 20 sources i think are actually reliable and useful
  • to make things a little worse, nearly all of the characters who do have enough material to work with already have articles of their own, so what little info they have here that isn't there yet could just be merged into their articles or the specific series they appear in
for debates on which series this info would need to be put in for characters who don't have their own articles... debut generation/series works unless talking about them in other series' contexts, i'd say
  • i don't even believe this can really fulfill wp:listn, as the only real demonstrated notability anyone has here is isolated or based on their interactions with ash and brock (and somehow no one else), which makes the roster itself not particularly notable

considering that entire sections of this list have nothing but a single list of credits as a source (rising volt tackler gamign), and other sections aren't even lucky enough for that (gym leaders and antagonists other than team rocket), i recommend either deleting or, if any info is deemed worth keeping, merging and redirecting it to pokémon (tv series) for attribution, as if it was just "trimmed", i'm not entirely sure the amount of characters it mentions with more than a name would exceed 5

what do you mean those weren't three issues? consarn (grave) (obituary) 18:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect per nom. Most of the info on the bulk of these recurring characters is discussed at the individual season articles already, with many only being relevant to particular seasons. The main recurring characters can have something added at Pokémon (TV series), which can be done editorially, but currently there's nothing to really "merge" sourcing wise for most of them. Personally I'm leaning redirect per to that article per Wikipedia:AtD, and the fact it will allow for easier merging of content should editors want to do so editorially, but I am unopposed to deletion if it means coming to a quicker consensus. Whatever works best. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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 () 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 () 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 () 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]
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 () 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]
Nova Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

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]
Mjolnir (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to establish the topic's notability - it's just a long plot summary, with some catalogue info thrown in (publication history, appearances in media). No analysis, reception, etc. My BEFORE failed to find anything that goes beyond plot summary. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest this to be redirected to Thor (Marvel Comics). We should also take a look at Mjolnir and Stormbreaker, which is the same but has some MCU-trivia on top. (If anyone is curious, Stormbreaker (comics) never even had an article, it was always just a redirect). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thor per others. No notability individually, but there is a highly associated topic we can send this to. I'd also agree to getting rid of Mjolnir and Stormbreaker as well, since that article is sustained entirely by info basically already and/or better covered by either Thor or Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe). Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999 Indeed. Can you AfD it? I am on holidays and a bit busy as a result... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus I think it'd be wiser to wait for this AfD's culmination, since this article would be the logical AtD for the Stormbreaker article. Discussion would probably flow better once the final outcome of Mjolnir's AfD is determined, whether it be keep, redirect, or what have you. I can definitely handle it once this is done though. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SolarBalls (web series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not able to find any significant coverage to establish notability. Fails to meet WP:GNG, and there is no sufficient evidence to support its inclusion. - The9Man Talk 08:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Lola and Virginia's article doesn't have a single reference and it remains there. 66.81.191.179 (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article was essentially grandfathered in since it was created about 13 17 years ago, when sourcing and reliability, or the lack thereof, were much less of a concern. You can't use that as an excuse for this article to be kept, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that instead of leaving something poorly done, we should improve it, and yes, I can use that as an excuse, and I can't add more sources to the article because everything is said in the fandom or Reddit. They are sources generated by me but generated by a text I read in the fandom or Reddit 66.81.191.179 (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no Wikipedia:Reliable sources. YouTube and Instagram are not valid, especially as the YT ones are to the channel in question and the Instagram are the creators account. One is to AthelstanFounder and looks like a random persons thoughts. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only primary or user generated sources given.

TheGoofWasHere (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Extra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another web-series, similar to the recently AfD'd Doctor Who: Access all Areas. A search for sources yields only WP:ROUTINE coverage of the series' announcement or PRIMARY coverage by the BBC's Doctor Who sites. All coverage in the article currently are either unreliable fansites, or similar, trivial, ROUTINE coverage. No indication of importance or impact beyond existing, and doesn't meet WP:GNG or any WP:SIGCOV bar. I'd suggest a redirect or merge to either Doctor Who series 8 or Doctor Who series 9, which this series focused on, as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: The Fan Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like the recently AfD's Doctor Who: Access All Areas, this is another similar program covering behind the scenes info for Doctor Who series 10. A search yields no coverage for this show, only being WP:ROUTINE recaps of production info revealed on the program and TRIVIALMENTIONs in articles focused on Christel Dee, where they briefly mention she was the past host. There are no reviews or any noteworthy reception, nor an indication of any impact I can find. I'd suggest a redirect or merge to Series 10, given it's the most closely associated subject. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suraapanam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. Only has 1 reliable review and 1 routine press release about the teaser release. Other review deemed unreliable by the Indian cinema taskforce [11] [12]. A WP:BEFORE found nothing of use: [13] [14]. DareshMohan (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Iron Man's armor (Marvel Cinematic Universe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created as a split from Iron Man's armor in other media that was later merged back to Iron Man's armor following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Man's armor in other media. There's no reason for the Marvel Cinematic Universe to be separated from Iron Man's armor anymore. Both articles are short enough that after merge they'd be within WP:PROSESIZE, and the Iron Man's armor contained a lot of unreferenced plotcruft that I recently removed (effectively the 'in other media' stuff). While there are sources that talk about how Iron Man looked in various movies, there's no reason to split this - it's also doing a disservice to the readers, most of whom will end up at the main IMA article and not see the good content in the article here; the Iron Man's armor article now has a tiny, one sentence section on IMA in other media, stating that "Iron Man's armors feature prominently in several films set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe." It should be replaced with the content of this article. I fail to see how the movie-universe armor has separate stand-alone notability versus its basic concept, and why it couldn't be merged. There was a discussion of this previously at Talk:Iron_Man's_armor#Merge_from_Iron_Man's_armor_(Marvel_Cinematic_Universe), but most comments were pretty much "just votes" with no meaningful rationale, IMHO. Anyway, as far reasons for deletions, I want to reiterate that this article is a bad WP:CFORK of dubious stand-alone WP:GNG that failed both in the past and now the logic of WP:SIZESPLIT. The fate of Iron Man's armor in other media was decided at AFD, the fate of the article that was split out of it should follow suit, given the failure of merge discussion to produce meaningful rationales (WP:NOVOTE). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. This is largely plot summary and nothing more, and I'm not seeing any SIGCOV, either from the keep votes or in the article, regarding this subject. I see no reason for a separation here, and the notability of the armor in the MCU is Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED from the notability of the armor elsewhere. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

another look at the sources, a merger isn't warranted. Darkknight2149 22:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale was as stated: "This was a legitimate split and even the OP admits that there are sources backing up the topic. [T]his nomination reads almost like it's fishing... As far as this one goes, I have no strong objection to it getting merged with another article, but there's not enough here to justify a deletion." Darkknight2149 06:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but all I see is "I have no strong objections to it getting merged but I don't like a deletion". It was not a legitimate split, since this topic has no stand-alone notability, per PROSESIZE, NOTINHERITED and OVERLAP. The practice of splitting bad and good content, creating one better and one bad article is not a good one. Bad content needs to be simply removed. Much of notability of the IM's armor is related to his MCU version, but it deesn't mean we need two articles on this. Simply put, MCU-related coverage made IM's armor notable - it wasn't before. If not for MCU stuff, we wouldn't need an article on this at all. Thanks to MCU, we can cover the topic of IM's armor. No need for a CFORK. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just took another look at the sources and most of them are specifically discussing the MCU iteration of the armor. What do you mean by "bad content" exactly? What part of SIGCOV does it fail? That's such a nebulous statement to make when the nomination already reads like it's fishing. The article goes into detail on the design, conception, and development of the film incarnation of the armor, so there's certainly more here than just fancruft and plot summary. You seem to be under the misconception that NOTINHERITED means "Splitting articles on topics that I don't personally consider important." I suggest you re-read the essays you just cited and take another look at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Let's not confuse snobbishness for notability guidelines. (Not to mention, the article split was discussed beforehand.) Darkknight2149 00:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rassilon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search through News, Books, and Scholar yields very little on this guy. While there are a few brief hits and mentions of Rassilon's plot roles, Rassilon himself has very little in the way of actual WP:SIGCOV analyzing or discussing him in particular. Any relevant mentions of him are better discussed at Time Lord due to the character's wider in-universe importance in regard to that species. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Villain's Journey, p. 205, ends up talking mostly about the doctor, but the section is dedicated to and discusses what we can learn from Rassilon embodying a tyrant. TARDISbound compares Rassilon and Omega from the scriptwriters' perspective and their relative importance in the franchise (and the same text also appears in Adventures Across Space and Time, p. 31. Daranios (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel there are some nice finds here, but the bulk of these are about a sentence or two within a larger article, or are information not pertaining to providing notability. I feel most of these are Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTIONS. I'd be a bit more hesitant if there were some big sources in the mix, but there's very little in the way of proper Wikipedia:SIGCOV on the subject, even in a borderline case like I've seen for a few other Who articles. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Religion and Doctor Who, p. 9, 185-186, has similar commentary to "Doctor Who and Immortality: Influence of Christian and Buddhist Ethics", although viewed more through a Buddhist lens. Daranios (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting, however I feel this sort of thing is more appropriate for a specific DW wiki (like TARDIS fandom), rather than a Wikipedia article.
My current thinking is a merge to Time Lord, however I'm still mostly unsure. 11WB (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, a section on religion in Time Lord might be appropriate so long as the aforementioned source above and other credible sources are used. 11WB (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@11wallisb: My understanding is that wikis like TARDIS fandom concentrate on presenting the in-universe lore (plot summary), while an interpretation of a character from a real-world Buddhist philosophical point of view is the type of analysis which fits in Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Said book does not document Time Lord religion, but rather which real-world religious concepts have entered the scripts of the series. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios That would likely be the case usually, definitely for main characters like The Doctor himself. For Rassilon though, which as this AfD suggests, a full article that includes viewpoints from Buddhism or other religions I fear may be unnecessary.

The point you make however did initially cross my mind after I replied and that's why I added an extra part on adding a religious sub section to the larger Time Lord article. 11WB (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Greatest Show in the Galaxy, p. 162-163, examines Rassilon's opinion on life. Which might acutally be more of a borderline case than the above. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe the listed secondary sources contain enough commentary to write a non-stubby article which also fullfils WP:ALLPLOT, which means this is notable in accordance with WP:WHYN after all. As discussed above none of these commentaries is very long, but short does not automatically mean trivial. Rather, it is a question if they have something meaningful to say on the topic which fits to an encyclopedic article, and I believe they do. The fact that this is not a main character should not hinder us to include certain types of commentary. I think a merge to Time Lord, in the absence of a better target, is perferable to deletion with regard to WP:ATD-M. But the majority of found commentary does not readily fit to Time Lord but is directed to Rassilion directly. So I believe keeping this a stand-alone article is the better solution. Daranios (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These are valid points you make. If the sources do contribute substantive commentary on solely Rassilon, then an article using those sources I believe would be appropriate. I think the current AfD has been started due to this very thing being missing from the article. 11WB (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated my vote to reflect these thoughts, whilst keeping WP:ATD-M open as an alternative to deletion. 11WB (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more participation and clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions

[edit]