Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements

Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  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|Fictional elements|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Fictional elements. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

The guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and essay Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) may be relevant here.

Related deletion sorting


Fictional elements

[edit]

Iron Man's armor (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

[edit]
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]

Enclave (comics)

[edit]
Enclave (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)

There are no reliable sources that meaningfully discuss this fictional organisation. In its current state, this article exclusively relies on primary sources, with the exception of an article that was published by a Valnet-owned publisher. Furthermore, it might not be a valid search term, as a massive number of false positives were found while trying to search for usable sources. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Munchkin Country

[edit]
Munchkin Country (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)

Similar to previous country articles that were AfD'd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadling Country and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winkie Country. Very doubtful that The Maps of Oz ref is WP:SIGCOV. Finding Oz book talks mostly about the Munchkins themselves. The book is available for borrowing at Archive.org: [1]. Note that Munchkin is a separate article to this country article. Suggesting a redirection to Land of Oz#Munchkin Country. Mika1h (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Routledge Companion to Imaginary Worlds, p. 362 has a comparison to regional US as non-plot commentary. "Utopian Tension in L. Frank Baum's Oz" notes that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz in American Popular Culture has commentary on "the class divisions in Munchkin Country (e.g. the rich Munchkin Boq) and the general economic disparity in Oz", but I have no access to this book to check how extended that is. Does anyone else? Daranios (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge per Rorshacma. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to really cover this separate from Oz more generally. Building a strong Land of Oz article would be more constructive, and it's good for editors to look for common ground and WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Land of Oz or keep. With the found secondary sources I believe a short but non-stubby article could be written which also fulfills WP:ALLPLOT, i.e. this seems to be a noteable topic. I expect that there are more sources out there, as I have found some in only a limited search, but don't want to invest the time to do more here now. So I have not problem with a merge until such information gets to detailed for an Land of Oz article on the basis of WP:PAGEDECIDE and Shooterwalker's suggestion to improve that article first. Daranios (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guilt Hulk

[edit]
Guilt Hulk (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)

While there are sources that discuss this particular Hulk alter, none of them are the types of sources that can be used to prove notability. Aside from a single mention in a scholarly book, all but two of the potential sources were operated by Valnet. With regards to the article's current sources, all of them were published by Marvel. In any case, this character could easily be discussed within the Hulk's main article. ―Susmuffin Talk 22:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fishstick (Fortnite)

[edit]
Fishstick (Fortnite) (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 character has gotten mostly trivial mentions in reliable sources and clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I guess as the creator of the article, I obviously think so. Characters meets WP:GNG, and does not "clearly" fail it. Fishstick has a good argument as the second-most popular original character in Fortnite, which can be seen from the amount Epic Games uses him in their promotional and collaborative material. Appearance in DC Comics + having literal Adidas shoes are pretty good examples of the latter. Worst case here would just be to re-convert it to the draft space I had it in previously (if that draft didn't exist, I'd probably advocate for a redirect to Fortnite), but a delete is a few touches too far imo. Soulbust (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to refute an AfD is giving direct links to the best possible sources on the character that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV rather than saying WP:SOURCESEXIST, WP:ITSPOPULAR and the like, which doesn't help your point that much. If I have missed really good sources then I might withdraw it or at least others would !vote keep. Right now, I am still not seeing it though. Also if something isn't notable then draftifying won't help it, per WP:OVERCOME... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERCOME isn't a guideline but if it was, it's worth noting that it make zero mentions of draft articles and then I could just easily point to WP:NDRAFT which is likewise an essay, but it actually does make explicit commentary on how to approach notability as it pertains to the draft space. I've had Fishstick in the regular draft space since October 2024, and in my own personal user draft space before that from December 2023 to October 2024. I think putting it back in as a draft should not be an issue for anybody.
Also "The best way to refute an AfD is giving direct links to the best possible sources on the character that demonstrate....." Yes, yes, trust me, I'm aware... I know... Part of me just feels like letting the article speak for itself here. But even more so, I just want to have both it and myself breathe a bit — as you nominated this for deletion less than a day after I moved it to the mainspace and aside from this article, I've been working on a lot of non-video game-related stuff lately.
I think this might be less of a clear-cut keep than those linked examples above (the Bastion one resulted in a merge, but hey, I guess WP:OVERCOME's "in a nutshell" comment that "the problem usually cannot be solved by more editing" might just be a bit flawed); regardless, I'll just let other editors chime in and if it leans toward a delete, I would at that point think I maybe moved it out of the draft space too early and would just ask the AfD closer to simply revert it back into a draft. As far as sources that mention Fishstick beyond a trivial mention (i.e. being SIGCOV), I would say: 1, 2, and 3. I might look for other sources later, but don't really want to bunker down and focus on this particular article at this moment. Soulbust (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts are for notable article subjects that need more work. A non-notable subject is not suitable for a draft unless you are sure it will become notable soon. It's just an end run around deletion that will cause problems further down the line if resubmitted without cause.
Your argument that it was nominated so quickly after moving it to mainspace is another WP:OVERCOME insinuation. Specifically, that working on it more will save it from deletion and you did not have time. To be clear, an AfD is about general notability rather than an article's current state.
I'd characterize 2/3 of those sources as overtly trivial and the last one as sort-of-significant but clearly not serious (I mean, since when is a mascot character "killed off" for real?) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find the draftify dispute unnecessary anyway, just do user pages like I do. No restrictions there if you wanna work on a user subpage Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, using user pages for this purpose does also have similar restrictions. Per the Wikipedia guideline WP:SUB, #3 of disallowed usage is using userpages as a permanent location for content meant to be part of the encyclopedia. Therefore, all articles that are userfied are meant to be there only on a temporary basis rather than permanent "until it ever becomes notable, even if it takes forever" storage - just with less of a clearly defined cutoff than regular drafts.
So odds are, if an article could be userfied, it might as well be a draft. And conversely, if it shouldn't be a draft, it likely shouldn't be a userpage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"permanent" implies the intention is that the article will remain in a draft space, which is clearly, ideally, not Soulbust's goal. Further, if it was draftified or userfied, it would definitionally not belong on the encyclopedia. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully whoever closes this AfD agrees with me that the whole point of a draft is just to progressively work on them. This is what it looked like when I first even conceived of this page. At that time, about a third of the sources presently on the article weren't even published yet. Soulbust (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Appearances in media don't count towards notability, and there is next to nothing here. Sorry Soulbust, but there's no meat on this bone. EDIT: I'm going to add to this, but a WP:BEFORE showed nothing either. There could be potential for a possible Characters of Fortnite, but the issue would be keeping it straightforward and satisfying LISTN.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contra Kung Fu Man, I have long argued here that a character appearing in a new media absolutely counts towards notability, as demonstrating real world impact. I find Soulbust's argument compelling. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I find the argument that collabs make a significant contribution to notability not compelling. It suggests that a character's notability could be bought, and if you wanted to argue that these media appearances make a significant difference, why don't we see any discussion about the significance of them? Why do we only have two sources discussing the skin's popularity? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "It suggests that a character's notability could be bought" And? If something is bought, maybe that just makes it notable in a way you (or I) don't like. But that doesn't matter if it ends up being notable as a result anyway. Also yes, Fortnite does in fact, through its ridiculous amount of collaborations, find a way to extend is relevance and double-down on its notability. Fishstick is, from what I can see (and I'd have to really dig into this to be sure, which would be against my desire), second to Peely as Epic's choice of sticking their own characters into the promotional and collaboration material they produce for Fortnite.
    "Why do we only have two sources discussing the skin's popularity" Which skin are you talking about? I found plenty of sourcing on the character's skins but wanted to avoid using unreliable sources or creating a ref-bomb situation. Soulbust (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant the Fish stick character skin, why is there such a limited selection of evidence that the result of these media appearances is anything significant? It feels like we're assuming that these media appearances have contributed to Fish stick being notable, but the sourcing doesn't say so. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourcing says that he has appeared in both Marvel and DC Comics issues, and that Epic and Adidas picked him as an inspiration for one of their Fortnite x Ultraboost shoe collabs. (So bascially, the significance is implied here, as an example). I'm reading WP:SIGCOV as that coverage passes a threshold of significance for us as editors here, not that the sourcing needs to explicitly call whatever it is covering "significant" from their perspective. And honestly, from the source's perspective, whatever they're covering is [they are] overwhelmingly more likely than not to think of their subject as significant and notable which is why they're covering/writing about it in the first place. Then it's up to us to parse it as past that aforementioned threshold or not, for Wikipedia purposes. But in any case, I'm gonna head offline now and re-visit this AfD at some later point. Soulbust (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    note struck through a portion of this that made my reply have a confusing logical/grammatical structure. Added "they are" as well, to help with that. Soulbust (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But we have WP:ROUTINE to cover that, there's nothing to suggest that coverage of Fishstick was anything more significant than any crossover. Notability is not inherited, and as a non-player, the article does not convey to me why Fishstick isn't more notable than a million different characters deemed non-notable for a lack of significant coverage Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear GNG failure. There's quite literally no SIGCOV I can see. A character being merchandised does not confer notability, just as a character existing does not confer notability. There is no significant real world impact I can see here. Willing to redirect if there's a good target but I see none for a character this obscure and non-notable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, so obscure that when you Google the character, he pops up before the food that Epic derived his name from. So "obscure". I'm not using that Google Trends chart to argue anything in regards of WP:GNG or whatever, but to call this character "obscure" is hilariously erroneous. Soulbust (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that replying to everyone who !votes delete or redirect, when said with this tone, runs afoul of beratement. I don't mind discussing this, but this doesn't seem like a tone this will engender meaningful discussion. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's easy to misread tone over text communication. Do I think it is flatly wrong to call the character obscure? Yes. Am I berating Pokelego999? No. They called this a "clear GNG failure"; and you stated that you "find the argument that collabs make a significant contribution to notability not compelling", so you saying you "don't mind discussing this" (presumably discussing this further) is confusing to me. What more is there to discuss? Pokelego999 thinks the article "clearly" fails GNG and doesn't see a good redirect target, though as mentioned above, I think a redirect to Fortnite (or as Kung Fu Man suggested, a potential Characters of Fortnite article, if it were to be made) would be apt. So with all that in mind already, I would just wanna move it back into the draft space if the AFD closer doesn't find this to be a keep. Soulbust (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling something "hilariously erroneous" is essentially an argument to the person; you're implying they are incompetent as an editor and thus their opinion should be ignored. Simply "erroneous" would suffice if you are just pointing out a mistake. Although I'd have to agree with Pokelego in that very few non-Fortnite players will have ever heard of this character. Googling "fish stick" solely gives me the food, so it's likely a case of small details, I never call the food a "fishstick" as that would be incorrect spelling. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Misspellings during Google searches happen all the time. The character's search history is on par with the food regardless, and my point in mentioning the Google search results in the first place was just to refute the statement that the character is "obscure".
I called it hilariously erroneous because it was a flatly incorrect statement. Note that I pointed to the word "obscure", and not "notable". Calling the character not notable is fair (more correctly, it's the appropriate word if you're asserting it isn't passing WP:GNG), but to call it obscure is incorrect. Maybe you think adding "hilariously" was much, but I wasn't implying incompetence on their part and claiming that I was is an overreaction to what I said. Also I wasn't planning to go on a long back-and-forth about it, because the character isn't obscure and I have no desire to argue that. Simple as. But it's confusing to me to act like it would be wrong to argue here when the whole AfD process is essentially putting an article on trial and arguing for or against its existence... WP:AFDFORMAT literally uses "argument" multiple times in its wording.
Also, the point that "very few non-Fortnite players will have ever heard of this character" doesn't really(?) matter. There is no policy or guideline I am aware of that makes articles have to pass some sort of (not) niche threshold to pass WP:GNG. Given the introduction on your user page ("with an emphasis on creating new, high-quality articles on obscure/quirky yet notable subjects that most people would not pick up on, such as little-known indie titles, niche games, game characters, levels and items"), I also find this point an odd knock on this article. Yes the word "notable" in that intro is not lost on me, but again, the article being about a niche/obscure topic vs. a notable topic are different conversations to me. Soulbust (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the matter of redirects, the Fortnite article does not mention this character at all, so a redirect there would be unhelpful. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why the Fortnite article (or more specifically the Fortnite Battle Royale article) couldn't be expanded to include a small sub-section about its in-game elements (including its characters). Soulbust (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean there's not really much to add. Fishstick has nothing really saying he's a very important part of the brand. He's just been promoted a bit. At least with something like the recently AfD'd Durrr Burger you can point to it being a major mascot or part of the branding, but Fishstick seems minor at best with the sourcing provided here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 07:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I point to the collaborations Epic has done to have him feature in content, not just multiple times, but with very high-profile collaborators. When they go into the comic space, they're collabing with both DC and Marvel to stick Fishstick in those comics. They don't do this with every character. When they go into shoes, they're collabing with Adidas. They made four shoes. Only Peely and Fishstick were picked for these shoes (the other two were based on non-character in-game elements). This isn't "minor" branding, in my opinion. Soulbust (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability about as weak as Peely, I would selectively merge both to a Fortnite characters section. IgelRM (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability can't be "about" as weak as anything else, WP:GNG is pretty much a binary. Either it passes or doesn't, and the only real variance is if an AfD gets kept (or deleted) "weakly", normally, or in a snow sense. Peely is a clear keep by the way, given that character's central role in the Epic Games vs. Apple lawsuit and even greater presence in Epic's promotional marketing of Fortnite/collaborative material. Soulbust (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per all. I am not seeing nearly enough WP:SIGCOV. I am neutral on the redirect target, and the main Fortnite article would be a good default. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Merchandise does not make a character notable and that seems to be the only argument presented thus far. IzzySwag (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, since today it will be a week since AfD was opened and this will potentially close -- if this was about raw votes, it obviously leans to delete (or perhaps redirect), but regardless I don't think it will end in keep, or even as no consensus (though would be pleasantly stunned if it did). In any case, I found more sourcing today, not the kind that I think would sway any stating to delete, though still useful for developing the article further. I do imagine the character will only continue to be present in Epic's promotional material and will continue to be written about in sourcing so I would ask the AfD closer to consider that I would be keen on this being re-draftified so I can continue working on it and so the prose as currently constructed can remain intact to either build on, restructure, or even have myself or another editor be able to do considerable overhauling of later on. This would be akin to previous experience with this sort of article being nominated (and closed as merge) and later revived. Thanks Soulbust (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I have no counterpoint to the concerns about notability, I do offer support that the notion of the character being "obscure" is rather misguided/incorrect, and I don't see any issue with draftifying. You also virtually wrote the entire article, so there's no real attribution issues if you just copy/paste a copy into a new user draft if you wish to keep working on it. It's not any sort of WP:NOT violation, so you're fine. Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for assessing the sources added by Soulbust.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because something exists and is discussed doesn't mean it warrants a Wikipedia article. The subject doesn't receive enough coverage to warrant its own article. Angryapathy (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The new sources don't add anything and I still feel redirect is the best option (Draftify could also work). If anything they helped ensure if it does get revived there may be more to clean out, I hate to say it...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, I think I was pretty up front that I don't think the sources added post-AfD nomination were ones that would change anyone's mind here. Also didn't say I was hoping for a relisting to have them be assessed. I think they are just citing supplemental information (like the emote) and honestly wish this was reverted back into the draft space. I don't think a redirect is inherently a bad choice, but I think can be constructively worked on as a draft. Soulbust (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I don't see significant coverage. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rassilon

[edit]
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]

Einzbern

[edit]
Einzbern (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)

Easily a 'useless' disambiguation page for a surname that no real world person (possibly) has. Propose that it be merged/redirect to Characters of Fate/stay night.

KrystalInfernus (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Withdrawn because I clearly cannot read; this is AFD, was meant to post this on RFD.**
KrystalInfernus (talk) 21:08, 15 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! 23:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Uma Musume Pretty Derby characters

[edit]
List of Uma Musume Pretty Derby 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)

Fails WP:NLIST. Character info are mostly unsourced with release info sources being unreliable. Not a plausible search term to be redirected. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss the edits to the article since nomination and both delete !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 19:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm@Vrxces@Go D. Usopp, would you mind taking another look at the list? It has been edited significantly since you !voted. Toadspike [Talk] 19:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article; I don't see the notability for the list and the character description are still really original research. IgelRM (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The character descriptions can be fixed. I see notability for the list as the cast and descriptions for the characters are covered in WP:RS. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like this might close as a No consensus or Keep but I'm relisting to give editors a chance to also consider Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in the linked FGO AFD are WP:VALNET sources, so I don't think this is any kind of precedent. I have not looked at the scholarly sources, but generally I think this type of notability cannot be established solely with those. IgelRM (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Valnet sources aren't academic sources, hence why I did not refer to them in the context of my !vote. ミラP@Miraclepine 01:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also depends on who writes the article, as credentials help establish notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, it wasn't totally clear to me from the comment before. IgelRM (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon characters

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Pokémon 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)

So to clarify here; this list is discussing the human characters in this series. The fictional species are covered at a variety of lists, most notably List of Pokémon. With that out of the way, let me elaborate.

WP:LISTN defines that the notability of lists is inherently dependent on the notability of the group; i.e, a list of human characters in this series needs to have sources discussing human characters as a whole. From my WP:BEFORE search, the only sources covering this as a group are WP:VALNET sources, which do not confer notability per our guidelines. Most hits for things like "Pokémon characters" are discussing the fictional species of Pokémon, not the human characters in the series, and the few that do discuss humans are either not discussing them as a group, discussing only one particular character (Such as Team Rocket), or are VALNET sources. Every Books or Scholar hit I could find was discussing how the Pokémon species have been interpreted, not any of the human characters. The only real potential hit I found is Newsweek discussing LGBT characters [[11]], but even that is just a summary of stuff existing more than an actual analysis.

Compared to the other human character list for this series (List of Pokémon anime characters), which at least has the potential for a WP:SIZESPLIT given how long the anime's gone for with such a large recurring supporting cast, the Pokémon games comparatively have fewer recurring characters. The bulk of the characters, and indeed the bulk on this list, largely only appear in one game, and are relegated to cameos after their debut. While there are a select few recurring entities like Professor Oak or Cynthia (Pokémon), these few characters are exceptions more than the norm. The vast bulk of these characters could easily be redirected to their debut game, with the few recurring characters easily able to be slotted into a smaller, more condensed character list at Pokémon (video game series) that I'd be willing to work on myself. This list should easily be able to slot into that article without causing bloat once all of the one off characters are redirected back to their original articles, which should prevent UNDUE concerns.

In brief, while the Pokémon species are notable, this separate list for other recurring human characters does not have the same group discussion, nor does it have a valid SIZESPLIT spinout rationale. This list could easily be condensed to slot into another article, and thus overall is unnecessary. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom and LWG. I think I see the logic here. The games never had a 'cast' of characters like one would expect in a conventional narrative game and as such there's not a lot of depth of coverage one would expect for WP:NLIST. Sure, there's a small number of independently notable characters, but in terms of reception and coverage relating to in-game characters, their depth leans much more heavily on how they are portrayed in the anime. There are conventions around the character archetypes of professor, rival, and Elite Four characters from game to game, but:
    1. not that many characters actually are notable by the looks of it, and those that are have been subsumed into archetypes rather than specific characters (i.e. Rivals)
    2. there aren't really that many sources comparing, discussing or evaluating the broader casts of characters;
    3. the characters really aren't that in-depth - for one, Red, a character whose appearance has attracted much secondary coverage, infamously has no dialogue at all in the game; and concurrently
    4. this is all fairly simple stuff that can be embedded in a character list as a subsection to the plots of each game article, and the archetypes in the series article.

As the nominator notes, few if any characters really appear consistently across the iterations of the games, with a handful of notable exceptions. So this does feel like an instance where WP:NLIST is arguably not satisfied. What would change my mind on this is if sources are found showing that there is indeed some coverage on the characters as a class. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per LISN- "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". I suppose work could be done to redirect, merge, or change this is to something else as the nominator proposed, but that also seems unnecessary and the simplest thing to do is just leave it as is. Rhino131 (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IgelRM the same problems still stand; even if it were to be determined that these characters would be better off not as individual articles, every single character article for a trainer (Bar Team Rocket and Cynthia (Pokémon)) only appeared in one game, or are notable as anime characters, not game characters (Like Ash Ketchum, Brock (Pokémon), Misty (Pokémon)). Given they relate to one game, we'd still have the same problem of these characters only being part of one major entry in a wider list, and we're still not passing LISTN since there's still no group coverage. No matter how it's sliced it's either just recreating the current problem or just creating an additional one. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the franchise main article to preserve its history, and then disperse usable information per Pokelego999. LISTN isn't feasible here because it's pulling in too many directions: while one could argue *some* of the character are notable, even some of the trainers to refine that downward, it's hard to argue that there's enough to cover the masses here. Additionally the argument that there's too much work involved to take it down is a terrible one. If anything I think Poke's suggestion has merit. There's also and lastly the problem that a list this monstrous doesn't really inform the reader of anything; it's a dumping ground that has gotten so massive it's next to impossible to find pertinent information, negating its whole purpose even in that regard.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe this does fullfil WP:LISTN and has navigational value for the notable ones and can be a home for brief commentary on non-notable ones in accordance with WP:ATD-M. It is also a good overview on the topic from the viewpoint of the franchise. If there is a size problem, more detailed information can be deferred to individual series, and this being the place where one can see what's out there and where. No objection to a renaming in case someone can come up with a more clear, fitting title. Daranios (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the other delete !votes - the problem with saying it is a list of "Pokemon characters" is that one asks - which Pokemon game or show exactly? The title is too vague, and it is better off done on a game-by-game basis. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because List of Pokémon is enough. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak convert to a disambiguation page housing List of Pokémon, List of Pokémon anime characters, and whatever else can be salvaged/scraped up. Otherwise, there's always Bulbapedia. (Might refine my decision based on further objections/support.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinions are all over the map, there is no consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, but for those voting to make it a list of recurring characters, that has several flaws. I've whipped up an example draft which showcases strictly recurring characters in the mainline games, that are not exclusively cameos, that are included on the list. I have made another version of this at User:Pokelego999/sandbox/Example Draft which showcases only characters with more than two major appearances in the series, if you want a more strict criteria that adheres to other lists on Wikipedia. As you can see, this list is frankly very small, and the large swathe of characters on the current list are basically only in one game, or are only recurring due to re-appearing in remakes of the same game, or appearing in a single direct sequel game (I.e, N is a character who is plot relevant to Pokémon Black and White and its sequels, but has not appeared in any games in the main series outside of them). Obviously, some of the text can either be trimmed or changed as need be to provide necessary context or fit better into a larger article, but the general point stands that, compared to the original list size, the actual "recurring characters" are very few and far between, and the actual text supplied by them is relatively small.
I would argue WP:NOPAGE applies very strongly in this instance. Characters who recur series wide beyond specific games would be better covered at the main series article, where their re-appearances can be understood in the context of the series' grander timeline. For example, the character Giovanni is a recurring antagonist across the series, and thus cannot be easily covered in one game's article; thus, he would be better covered at the series article. Meanwhile, characters who recur in one or two games are better covered at those games' particular articles, where their plot role can be more easily understood, and this information is not just being duplicated across multiple pages (For example, N again, where his plot role makes better sense discussed where it is relevant, at Black and White and its sequels' articles, since he is not relevant to the wider series beyond the self-contained events of these games). A character only relevant to one game remade countless times is similarly better covered at the original game (For instance, Wally who only has a significant plot role in Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire and its remake, which largely carries the same plot. Wally would logically be better covered at Ruby and Sapphire than at a separate article, where his plot role would merely be duplicated with nothing else added.)
Per NOPAGE, "Does other information provide needed context?" Yes, because the plot roles of these characters is provided in the parent game articles, alongside more detailed information relating to the games and their development. Similarly, per "What sourcing is available now?", there has been very little sourcing demonstrated for the bulk of these characters; the few notable ones have articles, and the ones that don't have nothing, as does the overall topic.
TLDR since this is a big block of text, but the actual content many are arguing to keep is still incredibly short, and even if you add in the notable one-offs to the listing, this still isn't something that's overly long for a standard "Characters" section at a series article. NOPAGE says that this information is better kept to larger articles, both per lack of sourcing, and per the fact the content the keep votes are arguing for does not present major WP:SIZESPLIT issues. I will also note that if anyone is concerned about this being too complicated, or not being carried out, that I have experience in this topic area and will volunteer to carry out any edits that are determined by this discussion, so this will not to be a burden on any voters in this discussion.
This is my argument: @MidnightMayhem:, @Christian75:, @Dream Focus:, does this sway your votes? Let me know if I can clarify my above stance in any way. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for this overview, I understand better now what exactly you are advocating for. If coverage of those notable characters can be effectively merged to the main series article, while leaving others to be covered at their respective games, that may be an improvement for readers. I will modify my vote. MidnightMayhem 05:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pokelego999 and their thorough analysis. There is only a small number of characters who apply here, and they are already covered in a more effective way at the series article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring characters in the Aubrey–Maturin series

[edit]
Recurring characters in the Aubrey–Maturin 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)

Again, this is just a very poorly refenced WP:ALLPLOT, this time there is even no list of apperances to match it. Fails WP:NLIST. WP:ATD-R, if we want to be generous, would be the main Aubrey–Maturin series, I think. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is essentially a fan article consisting almost wholly of unsourced plot elements, contrary to WP:ALLPLOT. Even if much can be sourced to reliable primary sources (the novels themselves), that would still not avoid the requirements of WP:ALLPLOT. There is little critical analyis, but what there is amounts to WP:OR, with no attempt to provide secondary reliable sources to support any character analysis. Very little here is salvageable, and no purpose would be served by keeping it and merely adding a tag calling for reliable sources to be added. I note that several of the characters already have their own articles, but there's no sourced material here worth merging. If anyone knows of independent sources that critically discuss any of the other major characters, they could consider creating new character-specific articles. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC) Changed vote - see below. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thomasfan1916 (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find this article helpful because it is a long series of novels about a set of characters with connected stories. It is helpful to a person who reads the series, and it provides a series view of these characters. At the time most text was written, the sources used were the novels themselves. If the lack of other sources is the true objection, perhaps there should be a request for more references both to the novels and any reviews or other sources. Per the revision history, I wrote more text than any other editor, which I had not realized. I listened to audio books so was not providing page numbers, but book and chapter at best. I see this as an extension or companion article to the Aubrey–Maturin series article. The period of history in which the novels are set was long and complex and the story twining through 21 novels is also long and complex. Perhaps another edit to this article would be links from the article on each novel to this article under debate, to specific characters. The descriptions here are series descriptions, not appropriate for any one novel’s article. I can slightly understand someone confusing it with fan text — for this series, there are links to the fan-type articles and tables. This article is descriptions of characters as they developed through the many years of the setting. I do hope the article is not deleted. - - Prairieplant (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSHELPFUL is not a good article for deletion discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is worth noting that the “fan web pages” for this series list every single minor or major character in the novel series, a very long list, where this article includes the major characters and those characters who “turn the plot” meaning they move the story in a new direction. Those characters are generally real historical people, moving the plot in tune with history of that era. I find these novels and these characters worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia because of the high quality of the writing by O’Brien and the exposition of an important era of history, both the major lenghthy war and the age of scientific discovery. I think this is the only time I have disagreed with editor @MichaelMaggs:, yet I do respect the points he makes and want to respect the changes he feels will improve the article. I think that some of the better reviews of specific novels might provide reliable sources to add to this article that focusses on characters rather than on each novel. - - Prairieplant (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are no sources present in the article that covers the subject of recurring characters in the book series, and none have been presented in this AFD. Searches are also not yielding any significant coverage in reliable sources that would allow this to pass WP:LISTN. The primary characters both have independent articles, and the main article on the series has a "Characters" section that can be expanded if sourced information is found, but there is nothing justifying a separate, largely unsourced collection of minor characters. Neither WP:ITSHELPFUL or WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES are valid arguments for keeping. Rorshacma (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rorshacma. When we focus on policy-based reasons, we just don't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. I also don't really see evidence that sources could exist. I'm open to an WP:ATD if someone wants to build that case. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am sympathetic to the points Prairieplant makes above, and I would like to apologise to for being overly quick to dismiss this as merely a 'fan article'. I have changed my vote and have struck my initial comments. Although "being a useful article" is not in itself a valid argument to keep, per WP:ITSHELPFUL, it may encourage editors to put in that bit of extra effort to avoid losing valuable content. In order to overcome WP:ALLPLOT, we'll need external sources. I'm aware of the following, which I hope should be enough:
  1. At least eight of the characters are based on real people: reliable sources include Tolstoy and King (biographies) and Brown (currently listed as a general source at the end of the article)
  2. Around 12 characters appear in the film Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, and real world links can be added to the film, and to the respective actors
  3. Many more appear in the various BBC radio adaptations of Master and Commander, The Mauritius Command, Desolation Island, HMS Surprise and The Fortune of War. Again, real world links can be added.
  4. Almost all the characters have separate entries in Brown; these generally summarise the characters' actions throughout the series, but without additional critical analysis. The presence of these recurring characters in this scholarly companion volume (which is by no means an in-universe catalogue) should be enough to pass WP:LISTN. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should note that in this type of list, not all entries need third party sources, and it's fine for them to be sourced to the primary work itself. Compare List of Dilbert characters which in spite of citing no external sources whatsoever is specifically noted in the guideline WP:CSC as being a valid example of a stand-alone list.
I will commit to adding the sources I've mentoned if others feel that would be a worthwhile thing to do. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even after three weeks of AfD, the article cites no third-party sources and contains not a word that is not plot summary. WP:NOTPLOT mandates deletion. Sandstein 15:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandstein, you didn't address the suggestions I made in my comment directly above yours. I’m willing to add the specific sources I listed, but I’d appreciate an indication as to whether they have potential to help. I’d prefer not to invest several hours compiling and formatting them only to find, after the fact, that editors always felt that such sources could never, even in principle, save the article. I’d welcome your thoughts. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That the characters appear in adaptations (which are primary sources and not independent) does not make them (as fictional characters) notable. Nor does the fact that some are also historical figures. In that case, it is the historical figures themselves who are (often) notable, not their literary portrayals. For those, we would need multiple independent reliable sources covering this particular set of fictional(ized) characters. So far we have only "The Patrick O'Brian Muster Book" by one Mr. Brown, which I don't know whether it is independent from the author or editor of the books it covers, and which at any rate is only one source. Which means that I'm not convinced of the article topic's notability. Even if the topic were notable, the current content is all plot summary and must therefore be deleted. Sandstein 18:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not rely grasp this reliance on NotPlot as an objection. Yes, I read the text to which it links. @Sandstein:, will you be happy only if we find masters and PhD theses about these characters in this series of novels? The Muster book by Brown mentioned above is independent of the author of the novels, by the way. If @MichaelMaggs: is willing to put in the effort to enrich commentary in a form to fit this article, I say encourage him. - - Prairieplant (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC) my[reply]
    No plot is simple: plot summaries are not sufficient to merit encyclopedia entries. We need to go beyond. And no, adding a list of appearances in media is not enough, that's catalogue stuff. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

[edit]

no articles proposed for deletion at this time