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]

Jim (28 Days Later)

[edit]
Jim (28 Days Later) (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)

WP:CFORK of 28 Days Later, 28 Days Later (film series), and Cillian Murphy. Most of the article is just plot summary that already exists at the first article, and much of the "Reception" section is covered in Murphy's own article. On top of that, I was suspicious of the "Reception" section's wording/verbiage; sure enough, various AI detectors I've run it through put it somewhere between 40% and 100% AI-written. Very few of the high-quality sources specifically address the Jim character as well, with most merely discussing the film; the only ones that focus on the character appear to be of lower quality. Should more than likely be redirected to the film series article, as it formerly was. The Kip (contribs) 04:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Scaramanga

[edit]
Francisco Scaramanga (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 notability guidelines OrdinaryOtter (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Battle for Dream Island characters

[edit]
List of Battle for Dream Island 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)

Moved to article space despite AfC declines. Fails WP:NLIST. guninvalid (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it could warrant in the future. Solely because the list of characters don't have enough coverage now, doesn't mean it won't happen later. ConeKota (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The delete would carry that same thought. Draftify or not. – The Grid (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(expanding on my own reasoning) As this article does not meet notability requirements, nor is there any indication it ever will, I believe this article does not have potential ... for improvement as asked for by the deletion policy's section on draftification as an alternative to deletion.
I find arguments that this should be draftified to avoid future recreations to be very weak, both because it posits that any deletion discussion can be held hostage by the specter of potential recreation (UPE, socks and LTAs rejoice), and because a single title blacklist rule[a] would remedy this project-wide. The TBL is a standard tool of WP:SALT, and has been applied effectively to this topic space before (see the rules).
Notability is not applied rigorously to drafts, but draftspace is for future articles, and this is not. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which page? You need to be more specific for which page to be redirected Wikiman2230 (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which page? The Battle for Dream Island page doesn't have much info on any specific characters, nor does the list of episodes. - ExcitedA. It may be a good idea to look at this. 23:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, same reply at the same time - ExcitedA. It may be a good idea to look at this. 23:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. In addition to HurricaneZeta's comment, this article has multiple trivia sections that are unsourced.
Jude Halley (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and do not delete, but salt the mainspace title. There are many editors interested in this topic and have specifically sought to edit this article in particular, so deleting this article will only lead to people wasting their time to recreate this information in a new draft anyways. Given that drafts don't need to be notable, there is no real reason to delete over draftification. Katzrockso (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts don't have to strictly meet WP:N, but that doesn't mean draftspace must host fanwiki content. Drafts are for pages intended to become articles, not for pages intended to forever languish in draftspace and accumulate fancruft. There are other projects for that.
but salt the mainspace title – If salting the mainspace title is expected to work, then salting the title in draftspace or globally should be expected to work also. Any issues with recreation can be addressed with the title blacklist. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a reverse crystal ball where we assume that the topic will never become notable. It is certainly plausible to think that this topic will become notable in the future.
If you think this is not even worthy as a draft, draftify and take it to MfD. Katzrockso (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no plausible route towards notability, but it is of course a judgement call. The idea of draftifying something at AfD for the purpose of then opening an MfD is confusing and not how the deletion process should work. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"No plausible route towards notability" is just a reverse CRYSRAL ball. There is a wide latitude in draftspace and there is an explicit consensus against applying notability to drafts, so there is no legitimate basic for opposing draftification ('fanwiki content' is IDL, not a PAG). Katzrockso (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Applying reductio ad absurdum to your reverse CRYSTAL argument would mean that no article should be deleted for notability reasons. We are expected to be able to use our own informed judgement when building consensus. Also, consensus concerning draftspace has little bearing on this discussion about an article.
there is no legitimate basic for opposing draftification – Draftification is an alternative to deletion, to quote directly from the deletion policy: Recently created articles that have potential, but do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ... for improvement, with the aim of eventually moving them back to the main namespace
In my judgement, this subject has no potential since it currently does not demonstrate notability, nor is there any indication it will be able to in the future. This judgement is informed by the sourcing currently available to establish WP:N (none), and the likelihood that BFDI characters specifically will be discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources [1] (exceedingly low) in a manner that would benefit from a new article instead of incorporation into BFDI (also exceedingly low).
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is for encyclopedic content, not unsubstantiated non-notable fan content. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reductio ad absurdium assumed here is completely inapplicable. The vast majority of AfD aren't initiated on articles originally in the draftspace, which were then, out of process, moved to the mainspace. The resolution to this is simply returning the article to the draftspace and if worried about repeated submissions to AfC, possible sanctions on the editor who is editing disruptively.
I will note that not one person felt the obligation to initiate deletion for this supposedly horrid non-notable fan content (I still don't know anything about this show other than what is included at Battle for Dream Island) when it was in the draftspace, and indeed a multitude of editors affirmatively indicated that editors interested in BFDI should edit that draft. Indeed, you yourself have directed people this this very draft [2]. If this draft was never fit for the mainspace, what is the logic in directing people to that page? To encourage people to work on content that should be deleted?
What your reply here assumes is that the draftspace has no utility other than for use in the AfC process (in a manner that would benefit from a new article instead of incorporation into BFDI). I disagree: articles in the draftspace can also be used to develop content that may be used in another article.
(I am not positively affirming this since I know nothing about these characters, but that the topic of a list needs to be discussed in secondary sources is a sufficient but not necessary condition for the existence of a list in article form; Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability is directly from NLIST. I doubt this list fulfills useful informational, navigational or development purposes, but there is scarcely reason to foreclose the possibility tout court from the entirety of the future). Katzrockso (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
out of process – What process? AfC is optional and non-binding. If an editor disagrees with a reviewer, they may move a draft to articlespace themselves (barring COI).
what is the logic in directing people to that page? – To avoid another copy being created elsewhere under a different name, two nonviable drafts are worse than one nonviable draft.
articles in the draftspace can also be used to develop content that may be used in another article – This article has nothing to offer to other existing articles or I'd !vote merge, and attempting to develop an existing article at a draft for a different subject would only serve to confuse the collaborative process.
but not necessary condition – I focused on the RS group coverage WP:NLIST criteria as the other mentioned paths are clearly untenable. It's correct that this is not a list that fulfills recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that many editors have worked on this article; you should see WP:HARDWORK. As others have said, if recreating the article becomes persistent, it may have to be salted. Jude Halley (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HARDWORK states "Deleted work can be restored to your personal page or to the draft namespace on request to an administrator". I support move protecting the draft/salting the mainspace title Katzrockso (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as draftify, but 1524 raised this and I agreed to relist to see if a different outcome might develop as a relist seemed more productive than DRV in this instance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft Fails WP:GNG TBB (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify for reasons listed by User:Katzrockso (and User:Kelob2678) above. Specifically, "There are many editors interested in this topic and have specifically sought to edit this article in particular, so deleting this article will only lead to people wasting their time to recreate this information in a new draft anyways. Given that drafts don't need to be notable, there is no real reason to delete over draftification." This draft was moved to the mainspace (undiscussed) without being ready, so re-draftification is by far the best course of action right now. Paintspot Infez (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify and salt: no amount of editing can fix a lack of notability. The salting is the important part. (t · c) buIdhe 01:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify it's not ready for mainspace until sources can be found TheRandomfanguy (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus (Kim Possible)

[edit]
Rufus (Kim Possible) (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)

Majority of sources listed are minor coverage for the character, passing mentions at most and are usually about the show/movie, especially those in the development section. Cast announcements are reliable for demonstrating notability but the other sources that attempt at significant coverage tend to be by Screen Rant, which do not count in this regard per WP:VALNET. In addition, information unrelated to the character's development and reception are kept at a bare minimum. A redirect to the character list for Kim Possible is more suitable at this stage. Go D. Usopp (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, information unrelated to the character's development and reception are kept at a bare minimum. is verifiably not true. ~2025-38537-34 (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Go D. Usopp: That sentence seems confusing in the nomination to me. Could you perhaps clarify? Daranios (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios The Development section is significantly more detailed in terms of content than the sections documenting the character's appearance in the series. In addition, some of the sources in that section provide significant coverage for the series or movie itself while mentioning the character at a capacity too minor to qualify as significant coverage. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Go D. Usopp: Usually the problem with articles on fictional characters is, that there is too much on plot summary. If we here have more development, I don't think that's a bad thing. If that's what secondary sources focus on, then that's what we document here. (And our article here is also pretty similar to the Kim Possible article in the regard.) In addition, more on appearance could be added through normal editing by using primary sources (and perhaps secondary ones - did there turn up nothing descriptive in your WP:BEFORE search?), if one feels there is an imbalance. As for the second part, a topic does not need to be the main topic of a secondary source for it to count towards notability. The question is not if the part about Rufus is major or minor, but if said sources present non-trivial information suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia (which does allow for coverage of popular culture). Daranios (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There isn't agreement yet over whether WP:SIGCOV is met due to WP:VALNET owned sources. Relisting to allow for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

[edit]

no articles proposed for deletion at this time