Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Fictional elements|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Fictional elements. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

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

Related deletion sorting

Fictional elements

Einzbern

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: RfD would not be the right venue for this discussion, as this is a set index and not a redirect. (Set indexes in turn are not disambiguation pages either, despite the nominator's statement.) The nominator may actually be referring to RM as they have started a requested move discussion, but as Characters of Fate/stay night is an extant article that the nominations propose merging or redirecting to—i.e., a move of this page is not being proposed—that isn't the right process either. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Uma Musume Pretty Derby characters

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Anime and manga, and Japan. Go D. Usopp (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Massive plotcruft, no context given. WP:INDISCRIMINATE failed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. I've seen similar lists survive deletion before, but that's where the sourcing covers the entire information presented, and doesn't go overboard with plot minutiae. Given the principle that plot is generally self-sourced from the work, the first part is more fatal to WP:NLIST than the latter. It is way too much though. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The article was split from the main Uma Musume Pretty Derby article last March, which had 223k bytes prior to the split, and the character list made up a good chunk of that at the time. While I'm not sure if the list as is is particularly well written, I also don't think that merging it back in to the main article would be helpful for the average reader, let alone deleting the article outright with no explanation of who makes an appearance. --Jnglmpera (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the appropriate decision would have been to significantly trim the list instead of spinning it out. IgelRM (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. These characters are mentioned in reliable sources (as used in the article and per WP:A&M/ORS) which include Anime News Network, Nikkan Sports, Comic Natalie and Oricon. In my opinion the character list needs to be trimmed down to just the main characters with character descriptions taken from the WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions alone aren't enough, the sources need to be significantly in-depth on the characters specifically for notability. IgelRM (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So have additional sources been looked for? After doing a quick search I found this source by THEM reviews (reliable per WP:A&M/ORS). This can be built up into a section regarding character reviews. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I narrowed the article's scope to just include the horse girl characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, WP:SPLIT, and WP:HEY. The list was in bad shape at the time of the AfD nom and is still not great, but the article has been improved by KnowledgeKid87 since the nomination. The subject itself (characters from Uma Musume) is notable, so it is just a question of how best to cover it, and merging this back into the game article would yield readability and undue concerns. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 13:49, 15 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]

Still fails WP:NLIST. A majority of sources are used to reference the casting of voice actors, with only a single citation used to document a character in the list. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a characters list for a notable franchise is per se notable, as it is not a separate topic, but a separate article split for readability and size purposes. No objection to further trimming and sourcing, but as pointed out above, those are SURMOUNTABLE problems. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Winkie Country

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

There doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage of this fictional country to pass WP:GNG. The 2nd source in the article is The Maps of Oz. I have doubts that a fictional map contains enough critical analysis to be considered significant coverage. The 5th source is The Dictionary of Imaginary Places which I have also doubts since during the AfD for Quadling Country it was said to be "just an overview of Oz history with no critical insight into any of it."

Then there is the book Oz and Beyond which discusses the location of Winkie Country on the map of Oz, not significant coverage IMO: [1]

The best source seems to be the book Monsters and the Monstrous: [2]. It contains this passage:

"The revision of the name of Winkie Country by Maguire to The Vinkus is an example of how small changes take on much greater significance in Maguire’s alternative, and much more adult, depiction of Oz. Winkie, the reader learns, is a slang term for the people from The Vinkus and reflects Oz’s colonial history and the prevailing attitudes of the elite and ruling class to the indigenous populations to the West and South of the Emerald City."

Suggesting a redirection to Land of Oz#Winkie Country, unless additional sourcing is found. Mika1h (talk) 19:03, 15 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 Literature. Mika1h (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon characters

AfDs for this article:

(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 [[3]], 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, Lists, and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect/incorporate characters to their relevant video game articles per nom. -- LWG ^talk 18:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major franchise, several characters (human) are notable, LISN is easily met, I don't see a problem here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 14 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]

Comment - If this is kept, it 100% needs a rename. Something like "List of human characters in Pokemon" or something. The current name is entirely counterintuitive - Pikachus are "characters" even if they're not human. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second this, most of them are called Pokemon trainers? IgelRM (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed if this ends up kept, since most of the hits I found for Pokémon characters were very much not about this particular grouping, and it can conflict with those looking for the species. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few articles on Pokemon characters/trainers in . A list with a few relevant trainers might be better than many individual articles. IgelRM (talk) 18:48, 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]

Puffball Collective

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

There are no independent and reliable discussions of this fictional character. Furthermore, all of this article's sources were published by the company that owns the character. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:31, 12 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. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hulk supporting characters#Enemies where they (it?) already appear and merge over the primary sources as WP:Alternative to deletion. The two sentences at the target can be further referenced and possibly expanded by the Marvel Encyclopedia as a non-indepent secondary source and this web article as a situational source. Altogether not nothing but not enough to establish notability. Daranios (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the creators should also be merged over, as corresponding real-world information to the plot summary present at the target. Daranios (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Klaatu (comics)

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

There are no sustained discussions of this fictional character. On a related note, the vast majority of search results relate to the character from The Day the Earth Stood Still. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:31, 12 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. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: K in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring characters in the Aubrey–Maturin series

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with cleanup template and move to a new title like List of characters in Aubrey-Maturin and use WP:RS, this isn't a dynamic list; also, wasn't the source material famously frozen in time? Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Wynwick55gl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . The user has even made a userpage "self-identifying" as a SPA, making it seem more like a block evader than anything else. Geschichte (talk) 08:46, 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)[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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring characters in the Hercule Poirot stories

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

De facto a a list of minor fictional characters, but just a plot summary and comments on who played them in some movies and such. Mostly unreferenced. Not seeing how this meets WP:NLIST and such. Possible WP:ATD-R is Hercule Poirot, I assume at least one of these characters is mentioned there, and there are likely redirects to this list. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move and give this major cleanup. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Wynwick55gl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Their argument seems pointless - move to where? The user has even made a userpage "self-identifying" as a SPA, making it seem more like a block evader than anything else. Geschichte (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thomasfan1916 (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Maybe needs a little more info. However, Category:Lists of literary characters and Category:Lists of fictional characters by medium indicate there are several ways to do any of them. — Maile (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Superintendent Battle

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

Minor character from Christie's novels. The article is just a plot summary and a list of appearances; my BEFORE shows mentions in passing, but no WP:SIGCOV. I am not sure what the best WP:ATD-R is here (Agatha_Christie's_fictional_universe#Superintendent_Battle?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that Harper Collins issued The Complete Superintendent Battle in 2003 [4], and WorldCat has Battle, Superintendent (Fictitious character) as a subject [5], which probably indicates its frequency as a search term. There are some results in Google Scholar - I haven't been able to access most of them, so can't tell how much coverage there is. Most results in digitised newspapers are about actors playing the role in stage and screen performances. The book A Talent to Deceive that is listed in the Bibliography of this article could perhaps be used as a reference - only snippet views are available on Google Books. I'll see what I can find. If the article is not kept, it could be selectively merged to Agatha Christie#Works#Works of fiction#Other detectives, where he is not even mentioned. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thomasfan1916 (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flower (skunk from Bambi)

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

Not notable as a standalone character - the sources are either simple routine listings or not about the character at all - the only source that appears to be is really just an interview with the voice actor. Unable to find anything significant on a BEFORE. Flower (Bambi) is already a redirect, and this article title is not viable as one. CoconutOctopus talk 12:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and Disney. CoconutOctopus talk 12:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Flower (Bambi) is effectively salted. If this afd results in a keep, I suggest histmerge into the redirect and unlock the article. – robertsky (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is kept as a redirect, I suggest histmerge as well but maintain the salt. – robertsky (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beeblebrox, the admin protecting the redirect at the proper name, is still active. Since this is editing around a protected redirect, I recommend it be ~~speedily draftified with no redirect~~ while we decide if we want it or not. Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the sourcing found and the fact that my original comment is no longer timely, I recommend it be moved to Flower (Bambi). Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list of Bambi characters or such. Right now this is just a plot summary+list of apperances, no evidence he meets WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced the article title is a valid redirect, and the shortened form already is one CoconutOctopus talk 16:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current article is nothing but plot summaries of the films and a list of "appearances" that is little more than trivia, and searches are not turning up enough significant coverage in reliable sources for the character to pass the WP:GNG. Flower (Bambi) already redirects to the first film, and I cannot imagine this particular title being a plausible enough search term for a redirect to actually be useful in this case. Rorshacma (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previews of the Google Scholar search look pretty promising with regard to non-trivial coverage, but I have no access to full articles. Has anyone checked them out yet when drawing their conclusions? Daranios (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through what I could access in the Wikipedia Library, most of them are brief mentions of Flower in the context of "Bambi, with his friends Flower and Thumper... etc." However, "When will my reflection show who I am inside?": Queering Disney Fantasy" has significant coverage of Flower as a queer character and "Man is in the Forest: Humans and Nature in Bambi and The Lion King" has a shorter paragraph about it as well. I only looked through the first 1.5 pages of the search results though, so someone with more free time might be able to find more. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this, @Schützenpanzer! I actually just earned/gained access to the Wikipedia Library. Appreciated! Sven's carrots (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First contributor/author of this. Looking at the history of the article... it was reviewed 25 days ago by a Wikipedian (presumably) as a part of New Pages Patrol. Shortly after said review, the article got significantly reduced down to a vignette or digest level, most likely why it got decked with the plot summary, notability, and urge to delete templates/notices. I can restore this article back to the state before review time. Give about 24 hours. Sven's carrots (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore is done with a few updates. Sven's carrots (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably move back to Flower (Bambi). Some improvements have already been made. With the existing sources, the found "When will my reflection show who I am inside?": Queering Disney Fantasy", and a number of shorter but non-trivial scholarly sources I believe a full article can be written. (Like Gender and Ideology in Disney's Beast Fables, ANIMATION, WORLD WAR II or The Gospel according to Disney.) Therefore this is a notable topic after all. Daranios (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is kept I agree it should absolutely be moved back to Flower (Bambi) - as robertsky has suggested that will need an admin to histmerge and move into the salted title. CoconutOctopus talk 10:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now that new sources have been found, I think it's a keep. Also move as suggested above. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added copy regarding the subject's evolving character and maturation, which leverages the newly discovered sources. I also support the move that's suggested above. Sven's carrots (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, hoping my copy addition inspires even better writing on the subject's character. Sven's carrots (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: Non-admin closure undone per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 June 15. Sandstein 16:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (inserting myself before this closes) per WP:HEY; the changes to the article includes the addition of sources that establishes the notability of the subject. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bambi page or delete as trivia. Example of said trivia:

Film appearances of "Flower"
Which theme parks you can see "Flower"
"Flower" appeared in Lego Disney Princess: The Castle Quest, House of Mouse, and Once Upon a Studio.

Yes you can find N or more sources for such trivia, but WP:NOT tells us to not create article or even a subsection out of it. Historyexpert2 (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cutie Mark Crusaders

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

Recently created from redirect. Which is where, imo, it belongs; not sufficiently notable for standalone article. TheLongTone (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Skynxnex (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters#The Cutie Mark Crusaders per nom. Nathannah • 📮 20:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some sources below. Could you take another look? Thank you! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The strongest 3 sources are given below.

Leslie Salas, Lorin Shahinian, ed. (2024-01-11). The Animated Dad: Essays on Father Figures in Cartoon Television. McFarland. ISBN 978-1-4766-5162-0.

"The Cutie Mark Crusaders work as deuteragonists in comparison to Twilight Sparkle and her friends. They are a trio of fillies trying to get their cutie marks, the symbols located on an Equestrian's flank that dictates what their special talent is and which appears in adolescence. The group consists of Applejack's little sister Applebloom, Rarity's little sister Sweetie Belle, and Rainbow Dash's foster sister Scootaloo. Due to their shared parental connections to the main cast, there was little examination of them (save Scootaloo in note 5). While this comment mainly refers to the intended audience of young children, it is also geared toward a signifcant portion of the Brony audience that include individuals on the autism spectrum. [...] Scootaloo herself has symbiotic parents, as shown in the episode "The Last Crusade." Both work as "creature catchers", the Equestrian version of zoologists, and, while very different in looks, largely coalesce in their rought-and-tumble personalities."

Snider, Brandon T. (2017). My Little Pony. Volume II: Friendship Is Magic: The Elements of Harmony: The Official Guidebook. New York: Little, Brown Books for Young Readers. ISBN 978-0-316-43197-2.

"Everypony is on a journey, but it's difficult for young ponies to be patient. All Apple Bloom, Scootaloo, and Sweetie Belle wanted to do was figure out who they were and what they were destined to do. They were desperate to discover their hidden talent, hoping a cutie mark would reveal itself and change their lives forever. Instead of worrying about it alone, they came together to form the ultimate support team: THE CUTIE MARK CRUSADERS. After a series of trials, the Crusaders successfully acquired their cutie marks and set out to prove their worth. Receiving a cutie mark doesn't mean they're done figuring everything out, of course. It simply means they're energized and on the right path. These feisty fillies are passionate about helping other young foals figure out their paths."

"Apple Bloom, Scootaloo, and Sweetie Belle hoped that by trying a bunch of different things together, they'd get their cutie marks lickety-split! So the three friends formed a secret club called the Cutie Mark Crusaders, whose members were dedicated to trying as many things as possible. Although the fillies have tried many diverse activities, like baking and magic, their cutie marks have yet to reveal themselves. Unfortunately, some intolerant ponies have mocked the young trio for not being able to find their proper vocations yet. Thankfully, wise ponies such as Princess Celestia have encouraged the girls to not lose hope and to keep experiencing as many things as possible."

Blue, Jen A. (2013-08-31). My Little Po-Mo: Unauthorized Critical Essays on My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic Season One. pp. 134–139.

"This is true on a trivial level; unlike the main characters, who are young adults with jobs, the Cutie Mark Crusaders are little girls of roughly the same age as the target audience of the show (perhaps slightly older, given the pubescent overtones surrounding getting one's cutie mark). Adult fans, on the other hand, frequently express difficulty identifying with the CMC. I can understand that difficulty, to an extent. The Cutie Mark Crusaders take screen time away from the Mane Six. Their stories frequently require the Mane Six to be “useless,” so that the CMC can retain the focus, which makes sense as adults frequently are useless within a child’s frame of reference, but nonetheless can feel like the series “disrespecting” its main characters in order to focus on one-off background characters. However, I think the anti-CMC portion of the fandom misses an essential feature of the CMC. The CMC, you see, are picked on and disliked by their peers. Later episodes show that they are easily swept up by their enthusiasms, and gifted with mechanical and technical tasks. And most of all, they are seeking to establish their identity by enthusiastically exploring their interests. To put it bluntly, they’re geeks. I argued back in Chapter 7 that Equestria is a nation of geeks, but the CMC are the stereotypical “geeks among geeks.”

GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @TheLongTone: I noticed that you put the AfD notice on the wrong person's talk page; I was the person who created the article, not the person who created the redirect. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination process is automatedTheLongTone (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GregariousMadness The second source, being an official guidebook that says it is licensed by Hasbro on the back, is not INDEPENDENT. The third source was published by CreateSpace, which means it is self-published; I see no indication that Jen A. Blue is a subject-matter expert here. Do you have any better sources to supplement these in your WP:THREE? Toadspike [Talk] 03:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here's another source. TulsaKids is a monthly magazine with an editorial board, see [6].

Rittler, Tara (2017-12-19). "Cupcakes for Pinkie Pie: Lessons learned from Season One of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic". TulsaKids. Retrieved 2025-06-01.

"“Call of the Cutie” marks the genesis of “The Cutie Mark Crusaders,” three young ponies who don’t yet have their cutie marks. [...] Apple Bloom and the other two ponies become instant friends and form a secret club, “The Cutie Mark Crusaders,” vowing to help one another on the quest to discover their passions and earn their cutie marks. While “Call of the Cutie” offers a nice lesson in being patient and not stressing out when you don’t know what you’re supposed to do with your life (a feeling I am all too familiar with!), “The Show Stoppers” has a moral that is even more compelling, I think. In this one, the Cutie Mark Crusaders further their quest by enrolling in a talent show, deciding to put on an amazing play. While it is obvious to everyone else which production role each of the Crusaders should assume, the young ponies can’t seem to realize that, if they just slow down and think about it, their special talents are already manifesting themselves. Scootaloo rides a scooter like no one else; Sweetie Belle can compose music and has a beautiful voice; Apple Bloom is a genius at construction. But when dividing up the tasks of singer, set/costume designer and choreographer, Sweetie Belle announces that she wants to do costumes because that’s what her older sister is good at. Scootaloo wants to do lead vocals because they’re performing a rock ballad, and presumably, that’s where the glory lies. Apple Bloom knows she’s not much of a dancer but does like karate, so her dance moves are all kicks and punches. The show is a disaster, predictably, but they end up getting the award for “Best Comedy Act.” Sadly, the Cutie Mark Crusaders decide that their true talent must be comedy, meaning that they will have to keep waiting for their cutie marks a while longer.

And another one, from SF Weekly (and also the author of Ponyville Confidential)

Connelly, Sherilyn (2012-04-25). "My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, Season 1, Episode 23". SF Weekly. Retrieved 2025-06-05.

"In their latest attempt to earn their cutie marks, Apple Bloom, Sweetie Belle, and Scootaloo learn something that Stan, Kyle, Eric, and Kenny would later discover: They should never have gone ziplining. Spike had told them it was awesome, which just figures. No worse for the wear (and covered in tree sap for neither the first nor last time), they decide to ask to older ponies how they got their cutie marks. Scootaloo insists they should start with Rainbow Dash, her clearly being the coolest pony ever. On their way to find Rainbow Dash they collide with Apple Bloom's older sister Applejack, who's happy to tell her own origin story, much to Scootaloo's annoyance. [...] Sweetie Belle and Apple Bloom find the story to be touching, but Scootaloo doesn't care for it. I see the Cutie Mark Crusaders as an audience surrogate in this episode. In my experience, two out of three new viewers of MLP:FIM will accept the show's tone and world view, while the third will find it too earnest and unironic. And that's fine. To each their own, and no show is for everybody. (I also adore Mad Men -- I thought last Sunday's episode was just astonishing -- but to some people who are much smarter than me, it's unpalatable.) The Crusaders' next unintended stop is Fluttershy."

In addition, Jen A. Blue (formerly Jed A. Blue) and her book have been cited in multiple reliable publications in journals (see [7]), for example, in:

Crome, A. (2014). Reconsidering religion and fandom: Christian fan works in My Little Pony fandom. Culture and Religion, 15(4), 399–418. doi:10.1080/14755610.2014.98423
Shoujo Versus Seinen? Address and Reception in Puella Magi Madoka Magica (2011) (Catherine Butler)
My Little Pony: A transcultural phenomenon. (Ewan Kirkland)

so I believe she can be used as WP:EXPERTSPS. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 03:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really disagree that three citations is sufficient evidence of wide citation to meet the high bar of EXPERTSPS. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Wikipedians generally use 3 or more citations to determine notability, so how is it any different to determine whether the book is reliable if it has been cited in multiple peer-reviewed journals and publications? And the book has been cited in 4 peer-reviewed publications, not 3, per this link [8], including The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture, Journal of Popular Television, Culture and Religion: An Interdisciplinary Journal, and Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies. The author herself has been cited more times than that. For example, Shoujo Versus Seinen? Address and Reception in Puella Magi Madoka Magica cites Blue, and the paper is from the peer-reviewed journal Children's Literature in Education. It makes no sense to dismiss this source when multiple highly reputable peer-reviewed journals agree that the source is usable. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 16:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Cutie mark. There's clearly something here, I'm not convinced that it can't be covered adequately here, the excerpts above do not seem super substantive. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A couple more sources:

Alvarez, Daniel. "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic 'One Bad Apple' Review". Unleash The Fanboy. Archived from the original on 2021-07-28.

Sims, Chris (2013-08-19). "The Cutie Mark Crusaders meddle with forces they do not understand (again) in 'My Little Pony Micro-series' #7". Comics Alliance.

GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 08:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Would these sources be enough to re-consider a keep? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 08:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think that a stand-alone article is merited here, honestly. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GregariousMadness has provided examples of secondary source coverage, and there is currently a full article which is more substantive than 90% of other articles on Wikipedia. Because the subject matter is notable and the alternatives are either keep or merge, the question therefore becomes, would this subject be better served by a standalone article? Reading through the list article and the Cutie Mark article, I think that a merge would result in WP:UNDUE concerns and a redirect would result in quality portions of an article rooted in substantive coverage, being lost. Keep. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 14:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, virtually all of the content in this article is sourced to unreliable FANCRUFT sources (Equestria Daily, Blue 2014, Unleash the Fanbo), that I don't think there's actually too much to merge here. The other RS's don't have significant coverage of the 'Cutie Mark Crusaders' as a group- SF weekly has one sentence of coverage ("I see the Cutie Mark Crusaders as an audience surrogate in this episode."), and only really discuss the topic in the context of a couple episodes. I'm not seeing significant analysis of the group as a group to suggest that a stand alone article is merited here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GregariousMadness' sources show that the subject is clearly notable and has GNG and I agree with the above that a merge would be problematic. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. The sources are generally insufficiently reliable and/or independent, being mostly associated with the series' creators or fandom. Sandstein 10:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time