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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]
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]

Salarian

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

Fails GNG. Article was refbombed with unreliable and trivia articles. BEFORE proves that this topic doesn't have any sigcov at all. This source perhaps [1] is the only good one but theres nothing more. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A vanilla scholar search appears to be legitimately confounded by the term's use as a last name. But there is this: Winter, J. (2023). “There Is No War, There Is Only Harvest”: Diplomatic Realpolitik and Combat Gameplay in Mass Effect. In: BioWare's Mass Effect. Palgrave Science Fiction and Fantasy: A New Canon. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18876-3_3. This whole book is available here, and I've ordered a copy. I'll note that if Salarians are covered significantly in multiple independently authored, this one book would provide significant coverage to retain the article. I'll know more Tuesday, but the first chapter I downloaded (I have university library access) appears to be valid. Jclemens (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it is true that some of the used sources are not suitable (blogs), there are other fine ones like Storytelling in Video Games. Taking those together we are nearing the threshold where this is not a stub. Including Jclemens' source and The Bloomsbury Handbook of Sex and Sexuality in Game Studies, p. 269-270, which analyzes the Salarians in their asexuality providing story-telling opportunities beyond "heteronormativity", should bring the article pretty clearly beyond that. Therefore notability is established. Daranios (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...but consider TNT & Rebuild While there is definitely some idea of notability here, I think a bit problem is so much of it relies on questionable refs and Valnet, and some of the former are interwoven into the article, concerns I brought up to the article's main contributor on his talk page. I would love to see this get overhauled as looking at their contribs they're working on further articles, and it'd help prevent a snowballing problem that'll be a pain to fix later.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:TNT would mean there is nothing worthwhile to preserve of current article content. But - aside from plot summary, which is also a relevant part of such an article - we have realiable, academic sources in the article. And Valnet sources have to be distinguished: While generally not relevant with regard to notability, many are still considered reliable for entertainment purposes. Daranios (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TNT also means sometimes there's something worth using but it needs to be rebuilt. A key problem is that there are references that shouldn't be used nestled in the body, not just the reception, and it needs to be taken apart and possibly started over in some areas. Either way the comment is directed at the author, not a suggestion for the AfD results.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Per Kung Fu Man. I had rejected it earlier, but it was incorrectly approved by a different reviewer. Still requires massive fixes/rewrite. Will these ever be done by the creator? Unknown, but badly sourced articles should not be allowed into mainspace. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are several drafts that are not being updated by original authors per the comments left there and it leads to decline. I performed WP:BEFORE before accepting it and it turned out to be a notable subject.

There was too much relevant information to decline with multiple sources. I tried to bring the tone to neutral myself and informed the author on their talk page to do so. Since then, the author is also active and has done their part including cleaning such sources. There are other editors who have done their bid to rectify any errors. No need for drafity as it is much better now than previously rejected versions. Give it a day, I will inform the author again and help them out in more cleaning wherever if needed. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 17:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is fine now, well attributed and good refs. I appreciate Oreun who has been working for past few days in order to save the article. If there are still any minor issues please share that on the talk page or help by editing. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 15:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With the help of HilssaMansen19 I've been working on cleaning up the article, removing unreliable and minor references, improving the tone, and adding most of the sources mentioned in this AfD discussion. I have not added the source Jclemens mentioned because I don't have access to it, but I trust they'll add it themselves if they find it suitable. If there are still issues with the article please share them on the article's talk page so that I, or someone else, can start working on fixing them. Oreun (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon should be delivering it tomorrow. Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's here; it's decent, but not everything I'd hoped for. Pretty short, and really only one author, but definitely covers Salarians non-trivially. It's one valid RS. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Gabriel

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

Has only one source, which is not independent. A before search found [2] and [3], the second of which is the only source I could find which could be considered secondary. Even that, however, is not WP:SIGCOV, as it's about the show rather than the character. He is mentioned in a few books from the show's era, but even those only mention him for a sentence or two (i.e., [4], [5], [6]). I should also mention there is a quicklet produced for the series, but this is just summarizing the plot and it's unclear whether it was produced independently or by the network. Subject fails WP:GNG and is not notable. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Crime. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Closer#Main cast and characters - I agree with the nomination that there is not sufficient significant coverage of the character in reliable sources to support an article. But redirecting to the cast/character list on the main article on the show is a reasonable WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to the main article to The Closer#Main cast and characters is sensible, as finding RS seems scarce for this as a standalone, this maybe the closest I found so far , but unfamiliar with the site's Independence or weight.https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/closers-corey-reynolds-tackles-whatever-role-comes-way-58516/ Lorraine Crane (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rival Schools characters

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

I've been doing a pretty hard deep dive on the Street Fighter franchise as of late, and in all honesty I haven't come across anything indicating there's discussion to warrant notability for this list.

Akira and to a lesser extent Hinata are the two main characters that received any reaction after release, with the exception of Tiffany getting a small share of the 2000's "HOTTEST BABES" commentary that says nothing but still manages to make you cringe physically. It's in that same Capcom boat like Star Gladiator or Power Stone where the character exist, but there's no commentary about them. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ALLPLOT, doesn't demonstrate that the characters as a group are notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As much as I love the cast, it's simply too niche to support itself as separate. I would still keep the redirect, as it's a valid search target and redirects are cheap.
Delete per Zxcvbnm. I don't see enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:NOT. I would consider a redirect if there is support for it, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per zxcvbnm. Too little sigcov to need its own list and WP:ALLPLOT. Go D. Usopp (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article about the show. Right now this is just a plot summary, with 99% of the content having no refs. WP:FANCRUFT, sadly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree WP:JUSTPLOT seems to be the case. The sourcing is pretty egregious - there's not a lot to justify here. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- or Merge to the article its heavily related with, Rival Schools: United by Fate as an ATD is agreeable to improve context of the main article. If this one lacks sigcov.Lorraine Crane (talk) 11:23, 9 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 [7].

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 [8]), 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 [9], 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]

Nick Knight (Forever Knight)

AfDs for this article:

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

Largely unreferenced article which is just an overlong plot synopsis without any further analysis. WP:FANCRUFT --wooden superman 07:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. --wooden superman 07:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though currently poorly sourced, I believe this character to be notable. The following (and possibly their reviews) could be used as sources:

Melton, J. Gordon (September 2010). The Vampire Book: The Encyclopedia of the Undead. Visible Ink Press. pp. 255–258. ISBN 978-1-57859-350-7.
Hoppenstand, Gary; Browne, Ray Broadus (1996). The Gothic World of Anne Rice. Popular Press. p. 231. ISBN 978-0-87972-708-6.
Grace, Angela (May 2011). Dark Angels Revealed. Fair Winds Press. p. 184. ISBN 978-1-59233-457-5.
Abbott, Stacey; Brown, Simon (Summer–Fall 2019). ""Let's Go to Work": The Legacy of Angel a Slayage Special Issue". Slayage. 17 (2): 1–18.
Garrett, Susan M. (1997). Forever Knight: Intimations of mortality. Boulevard Books. ISBN 9781572973138.
Sizemore, Susan (1997). Forever Knight: A stirring of dust. Boulevard Books. ISBN 9781572972384.
Hathaway-Nayne, Anne (1998). These Our Revels. Berkley Boulevard Books. ISBN 978-0-425-16491-4.
"Forever Knight". Epi-Log Magazine. No. 36. Nov 1993. pp. 4–11.
"Forever Knight". Epi-Log Magazine. No. 37. Dec 1993. pp. 29–35, 62.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very well, but none of these sources are used in the article, and all we have is WP:ALLPLOT. There is no analysis. Without access to these books, we cannot know if these sources discuss the subject in depth. --wooden superman 07:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that the current state of the article is not a reason for deletion if the topic notable
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe with the existing coverage in secondary sources a full article can be written, which fullfils both WP:WHYN and WP:NOTPLOT. E.g. The Gothic World of Anne Rice and Joss Whedon Vs. the Horror Tradition contain comparisons to other fictional characters and evaluation, i.e. information beyond plot summary. The fact that they have not yet been used in the article is not relevant based on WP:ARTN. Daranios (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. There is potential, but it is not shown at all in the article; plus potential does not mean the article can be written - sources above have not been shown to contain SIGCOV or go beyond plot summary; there are just, at this point, wishful thinking that maybe there's something useful in them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daranos' sources contain more than plot summaries. Likewise for The Vampire Book, The Gothic World of Anne Rice, and Dark Angels Revealed, as well as the Slayage article. Those all meet SIGCOV. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Piotrus. I agree that the sources would not allow us to write a substantial article that meets WP:NOT. It may be borderline and I would also consider a merge. We need WP:SIGCOV to be able to write about reception and development of this character in the real world, not just recaps of how they appear in the fiction. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note: When specifying a !vote to redirect, you must include a link to the target article you are proposing a redirect to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consensus is that available sourcing is adequate to meet the GNG, but there's some inappropriate expectation that the article be improved to merit being kept. That violates WP:NEXIST and WP:TIND. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time