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:

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|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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Science fiction and fantasy

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]

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]

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]

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]

Armies of Death

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Games. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am neither for nor against deletion because I know nothing about this subject, but I would not suggest a redirect to Fighting Fantasy because this subject is not mentioned in that article at all. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it should be. So add mention and then redirect. Very odd there is not a list of the books in that article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can actually do that yourself. If that was your only issue, there was no need to bring the article to AfD. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the link is in that article or not, there is still obviously a need to bring it to AfD because the book is not notable.

I'll do it sometime later if someone doesn't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the books are on the list article, List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks, which is stuck in the see also for some reason. So redirect there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it now meets the requirements following the reviews added by User:Guinness323. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those reviews are reliable. The RSN discussion on Fantasy Book Review came to the conclusion it was unusuable for notability, the other is a blog and the other is one sentence of coverage in a listicle. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. As far as I can see, all the FF series have articles. It would make no sense for this to be the sole one that didn't. This needs wider discussion than just a single book. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp For the record, less than half do... so no. List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I was looking at the wrong list. I'm neutral then. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Companion Pieces: Fantasy Furnishing

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Games. Rorshacma (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who are "The Companions" who published this? Is this part of a series? Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to have been a small, short-lived company that published a few TTRPG books and accessories in the early-to-mid eighties. But like I said, I had trouble finding any significant coverage on the company in reliable sources - this is just from their listing on RPGgeek. Rorshacma (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this a joke? I feel like anyone who thinks this article is worthy of an encyclopedia is actually pranking us. One source. Wow. - Poof positive (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or redirect somewhere. User:BOZ created many similar articles, many are borderline or better notable, but this one has just a single source. That's sadly not enough to warrant a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure where this would be discussed in a publisher, author, or list article either. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, when possible a userfy/draftify option is a good option as an ATD. There are scant sources from what I see here, but then the subject matter is not a contentious BLP or I am not sure precisely which N guideline would apply. In such a case, a draftify/userfy option is wise. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:38, 3 July 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of systemless fantasy role-playing game supplements#The Companions - I added an entry of the game there along with the reference. --Mika1h (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a bit of description and a bit of commentary to List of systemless fantasy role-playing game supplements#The Companions (great find on this target!). We do have one relevant source, so not notable for a stand-alone article. But also no reason not to use that source in appropriate coverage of the topic. Daranios (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of systemless fantasy role-playing game supplements#The Companions I agree that redirecting is the best move here and I appreciate that @Mika1h: made an entry with the one actual source used to make this entire article. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dalekmania

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well there is a reliable source review of the documentary here from DVD Verdict, and this off-line reference: Brown, Geoff (5 August 1995). "New On Video". The Times. was added to the talk page, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306 two questions:
1. What is the reliability of DVD Verdict? I'm unfamiliar with the source and I can't seem to find any info on author credentials or reliability either on the site or at any of the major WikiProjects.
2. Do you have access to "New on Video"? Without knowing what's inside of it, I'm not sure how useful it can be since we have no clue what kind of coverage the source contains.
Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk)

(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]

Comment - instead of nominating this longstanding (19 years) article for deletion, how about looking at ways to improve it? Jack1956 (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super soldier

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The OP appears to be nominating this article based on "it only refers to fiction, not real life" which is not a valid deletion reason at all (articles on entirely fictional concepts are entirely valid), and (relatedly) on what the article doesn't include, which is something fixed through editing, not deletion. No policy- or guideline-based argument for deletion is made at all, and AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Parts about sci-fi are disorganized and vague. --Ejkohojkjkohokjh (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per criterion 4. The first edit from a newly registered user being to initiate an AfD is presumptively socking or block evasion. Also, no problem is identified that is not SURMOUNTABLE. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This is literally the first time i do edits on Wikipedia. --Ejkohojkjkohokjh (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't believe you. With a keyboard-mashing-like username, I am entirely unwilling to assume good faith. Good faith editors usually fix something first, not attempt to create or delete articles. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So i add it to Wikipedia:Cleanup? --Ejkohojkjkohokjh (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't add it to Wikipedia:Cleanup. --Ejkohojkjkohokjh (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- So, if page doesn't get deleted, then it should go to cleanup. --Ejkohojkjkohokjh (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is pretty bad but likely has potential - there is no evidence of WP:BEFORE. Quick GS query yields stuff like [3] and the discussion in this book [4] is pretty promising. Ping User:TompaDompa. This may merit a WP:TNT treatment, although WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. I am a bit torn about how much can be rescued here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- What a mess. Military research on the one hand and stock characters/archetypes/science fiction themes on the other are rather different topics, and this article does not do a good job at distinguishing between them. If we go back a number of years in the article history, we find that it was all about fiction. I'll see what I can do. TompaDompa (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm. It's not looking terribly promising. The sources I have found that use the term "super soldier" in the context of fiction mostly talk about Captain America specifically, rather than the overarching topic. There are also some that talk about other specific instances, but the coverage of the overarching topic that I have come across so far is surprisingly scant. That suggests to me that having a stand-alone article on the topic is not the best way to cover this material. TompaDompa (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now page is extremely short rump without any useful information about real-life, and extremely scarce information about fiction. I think it should get either WP:TNT treatment, or be deleted. --Ejkohojkjkohokjh (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. The topic is notable and is already being properly reconfigured. Svartner (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A cursory search produces a wealth of academic works e.g. on the legal [5], ethical [6] and social issues [7] associated with the topic, how said ethical concerns might be "addressed" through comparison to fictional superheroes [8], how the imagery of "super soldiers" has been used by Hollywood to explain the US performance during the Vietnam War [9], etc. Care might need to be taken to ensure a suitable balance/separation of the non-fictional and fictional aspects of the topic, but the topic in general certainly appears suitable for inclusion. -Ljleppan (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It's worth noting that these sources do not all use the term "super soldier" to mean the same thing as each other. "A Hollywood War of Wills: Cinematic Representation of Vietnamese Super-Soldiers and America's Defeat in the War", for instance, specifically uses the term to mean a stereotype of soldiers found in certain works of fiction. These are not enhanced versions of humans with superhuman capabilities, but (enemy) soldiers with exceptionally strong determination and/or exceptional skill. That's quite different from the sense in which Captain America is a super soldier, or the sense in which biomedical research including genetic engineering aims to improve the capabilities of real-world soldiers. There is a real risk of creating a kind of WP:FRANKENSTEIN here if we are not careful. TompaDompa (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  There are probably a reasonable arguments on all sides on whether the "superhuman" physical/mental abilities refer to something that is beyond _most_ or _all_ (current, non-enhanced) humans - I can see how the first definition could include the Hollywood representations of the Vietnamese. I'd hope there'd be sources that would allow us to explore that distinctions but haven't looked into whether someone actually makes that specific point. But yes, I fully agree that some care must be taken here with the actual writing. It might even turn out that we want to separate, say, "super soldier (fiction)" from "military human enhancement" down the line or something like that, but I think we can just kick that particular can down the road some. - Ljleppan (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Power Within (1979 film)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to John Llewellyn Moxey, if no better target can be found. We don't seem to have enough coverage for a stand-alone article, but we do have a review and a limited amount of content suitable to our general and specialized encylopedia, so we should strive to accomodate that per WP:ATD-M. Daranios (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll confirm I am happy with that WP:ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:34, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, Popular culture, and Japan. consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 18:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT. I feel like it's possible that the characters from the Original Series may be notable, as mentioned in the nomination by Consarn, due to the heavy prominence of that show, but in terms of every Pokemon anime ever made, certainly not. This list is simply too broad, and WP:ALLPLOT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Zx and Consarn. This thing is a behemoth of a mess, and I feel you can probably count the list of even slightly notable characters from the anime on one hand, and most of those are already spun out. What we have here instead is trying to cover too much at once and at the same time every little detail, making it impossible to justify WP:LISTN and violate WP:NOT at the same time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Pokémon (TV series) and reduce plot-based description for the best. If some characters are notable (Ash, Brock, Misty, and Serena), I feel like there's no need to delete the article. We've been dealing with the recent issues about list of anime characters pages over and over. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i did mention that they were notable... but in this case, they're too notable, as they already have their own articles in which that info could be merged (ass ketchup, brock, misty, fourth best hat of the protags), which is itself implausible because it's already there. i have no idea if this would affect this vote in any way, but it's good to clarify consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 12:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per nom. There are already articles about the notable Pokemon, and this list doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:LISTN for yet more redundant coverage. There is already an embedded template at every Pokemon article for navigation purposes. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
uh, i should note that this article is about pokémon characters, not pokémon themselves (you know, like the weird cabbage thing from all the porn). and even then, it's specifically about the human characters, which is kind of weird considering the meowth from the anime (who is a major character), but i won't question it. unless you did actually mean characters, in which case my bad lol consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 20:15, 8 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

(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]

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]
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]

Mjolnir (comics)

(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]

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} 10:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Thor (Marvel Comics) as a WP:ATD. The article itself clearly fails notability criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zxcvbnm. This isn't separately notable and is already covered more proportionally elsewhere. Given Mjolnir and Stormbreaker, I'd be concerned about endless forks of the same topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:52, 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]

Redirect to the equipment section of Thor in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Thor (Marvel Comics) - There are no sources to indicate that Mjolnir is a topic independently notable from Thor, and it is already covered on the main Thor article. Redirecting there is a reasonable WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SolarBalls (web series)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Internet, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only primary or user generated sources given.

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

Delete as no valid sources given, — Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 20:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not seeing any WP:RS for this. Fans of the series are encouraged to use Wikia or TVTropes instead. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Extra

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Internet, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: The Fan Show

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Internet, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Doctor Who series 10. No significant coverage. Two of the references are permanently dead links while two other links are duplicates. The last link is just a YouTube website which doesn't grant any notability for this standalone article. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suraapanam

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:02, 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)

(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]

Strongly Merge as per nomination in toto. This doesn't seem to be well served by a bifurcated page. Iron Man's armor is Iron Man's armor whether it's in the MCU or on Mr. Rodger's Neighborhood. A single page increases the likelihood that a user will find what they are looking for. That being said, I am not entirely convinced that the wardrobe of any character justifies it's own Encyclopedia entry, but that's another discussion for another page for another day. Foxtrot620 (talk) 01:05, 27 June 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} 00:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: There was just a months-long discussion opposing a merge, and any proposed deletion would result in content from this article being merged into the comics article. The MCU version of the Iron Man armors have enough significant discussion about how they were made for the films that are distinct from the comics article. If this article were to be merged anywhere, I would suggest Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) as a more appropriate avenue, but AfD is NOT the place to try and force a merger just because it was recently rejected with consensus against a merge. I'm sure this article can be expanded to include commentary about the armor designs from the films, if that is a concern. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is as legitimate as any other "(Marvel Cinematic Universe)" topic because the expansive world of MCU films and television series (and even tie-in comic books) presents a distinct vision from the original comic book material, and has its own distinct coverage. With respect to Iron Man's armor in the films, for example, there are details about both the practical costuming and the CGI rendering that are irrelevant to purely comic book versions. BD2412 T 01:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I will ping participants of the discussions merged here: @RemoveRedSky, InfiniteNexus, Maxwell Smart123321, Trailblazer101, The Squirrel Conspiracy, Andrew Davidson, Hako9, Johnpacklambert, Favre1fan93, Dream Focus, Darkknight2149, TTN, BOZ, and Rorshacma:. I was going to do it from the nomb but got distracted. Sorry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no memory of any previous discussions I've been involved in regarding this subject, but if I had to guess, I found some version of the article via a bot-maintained list of articles by highest count of non-free files, and tried to get that number down. I did a lot of that with superhero articles. In terms of the article as it stands now, even from a quick glance it's in remarkably good shape compared to a lot of articles I've seen in the area. Should that have any bearing on this discussion? Probably not. Just pointing out that I've seen my fair share of impenetrable lore dumps and this article has such things as formatting and citations, which those were thin on. @Piotrus: I'm not upset at all that you pinged me, but feel free to skip doing so in future DRs. It's been many years since I was involved in writing Wikipedia articles and I doubt I'll have much to offer in DRs going forward. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy You were the nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Man's armor in other media :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:21, 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]

Keep per Trailblazer. The film version is independently notable because of all the real-world production information available (design, practical suits, VFX, etc.) and cramming all of this into the bottom of the comics article would be silly. If the comics article is barely holding itself together then why not merge it to Iron Man? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as best summarised by Trailblazer and adamstom97. Maxwell Smart ¹²³³²¹ 13:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge as content fork. There is already an article for Iron Man's armor, let alone Iron Man (comic book) and Iron Man and Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe). This covers much of the same content with minimal unique coverage added. I appreciate the keep !votes who are open to finding an appropriate target, per WP:ATD and WP:CONSENSUS. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination. This is a content fork that does not demonstrate adequate sources to justify having a separate article. The concerns about the article size is easily solved by only merging the notable, well sourced examples and not the copious amounts of non-notable examples and trivia. While either the nominator's proposed Iron Man's armor or the subsequently suggested Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) would be appropriate merge targets, I personally feel that the latter would be the better choice. Rorshacma (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer to see it expanded to other powered armor concepts rather than merged to a single character. BD2412 T 00:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @BD2412 We have Exoskeleton_(human)#Fictional_depictions and a rather not impressive List of films featuring powered exoskeletons... We probably need Exoskeleton (human) in fiction. Right, @TompaDompa. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  This would appear to be more-or-less the same topic as what The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction calls "Powered Armour", right? I also found a brief chapter—"Exoskeleton"—in Robert W. Bly's The Science in Science Fiction: 83 SF Predictions That Became Scientific Reality (2005), so the topic at least meets notability requirements. TompaDompa (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Without nerding out about it too much, I think there is very likely to be sufficient content for an article specific to powered armor in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, particularly including Stark designed armor, whether used by Stark or by other characters, such as the various War Machine suits, the Iron Spider suit, and upgrades to technology used by Steve Rogers, Clint Barton, and others. There is also the unrelated Black Panther vibranium suit, and more recently the Stark-inspired Ironheart armor. Generally speaking, all of this is more fiction than science. BD2412 T 19:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Trail and Adam. This is a legitimate split of content that was adding undue weight to the comics' armor page when it was created, and by far has it's own notability to justify its existence. And as per Trail, additional work can be done to add more information about the real world creations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But after cleaning unreferenced plot fancruft from the comic's armor page, it has plenty of room for that. And it's hardly undue there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This was a legitimate split and even the OP admits that there are sources backing up the topic. To be quite honest, this nomination reads almost like it's fishing. I'm getting flashbacks to the slew of low-effort comic book-related AfDs that plagued the early-2020s where a few people would nominate whatever and use WP:IDONTKNOWIT and the current quality state of the articles as a rationale (this was at a time when almost everything deletion-related at WP:ANI was getting deadlocked due to tribalism and eventually sent to Arbcom, so the people doing it were untouchable and a lot of GNG-passing content went into the meat grinder). 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~~. After taking

another look at the sources, a merger isn't warranted. Dark knight 2149 22:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, where is your keep rationale here, outside WP:IDONTLIKEIT? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read. WP:IDONTLIKEIT refers to nominating something for deletion because you don't like the topic. Reasoning such as "This is comic book fandom run amok really, the armor is not that important to require 2 separate articles from the character himself" qualifies; WP:SIGCOV doesn't care what you think is "important". AfDs would be highly subjective if that were the case.

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." Dark knight 2149 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.) Dark knight 2149 00:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Iron Man's armor per WP:OVERLAP. This is comic book fandom run amok really, the armor is not that important to require 2 separate articles from the character himself, who is largely known for the armor anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 30 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!} 16:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This is clearly a subtopic of Iron Man's armor and at an appropriate level of detail easily fits into that article. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Doczilla and Eluchil404: What if this article was instead expanded to cover powered armor in the MCU more generally (particularly now that Ironheart has been released). BD2412 T 01:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rassilon

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject to expansion with sources linked below or merge into Time Lord with expanded sections (see below): I am surprised Rassilon only has three appearances in the entire 62 year run of Doctor Who. Especially considering the importance of his character. This article does actually have a fair bit of information on him, ~~so currently I really don't know what to vote. I will edit this once I read the opinions of others.~~ 11WB (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having considered the possibilities of topics such as religious perspectives and the other sources that have been mentioned (which appear to be WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS). I think keeping this article or merging into the larger Time Lord article, with potential for expanded sections on the perspectives mentioned below in both cases, is most appropriate at this time. 11WB (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For collecting some sources, there is limited commentary beyond pure plot summary in these web articles: [15], [16] (closely related to the former), [17], [18], [19], as well as "Doctor Who and Immortality: Influence of Christian and Buddhist Ethics", available at WikiLibrary. A little more substantial, Women in Doctor Who: Damsels, Feminists and Monsters, p. 208-209 interprets Rassilon as "the force of supreme patriarchal power". Very brief characterization here. A Companion to Literature, Film, and Adaptation, p. 246, while not long, is interesting in its characterization and comparison to Shakespeare figure. Daranios (talk) 10:02, 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]

Keep. I think the sources discussed above are sufficient to support an article. Time Lord is certainly the parent article if people want to persue a merge, but that doesn't seem necessary to me. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions

Exiles to Glory (via WP:PROD on 11 April 2025)