Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Fictional elements.
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.


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]

Matt (Wii Sports)[edit]

Matt (Wii Sports) (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)

Unfortunately a non-notable character article. The article has some WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources - to the extent that the character is a topic of discussion in Game Ramt style pieces - but what is here is quite minimal: this is not a character with a personality, story or really any background, there is no initial reception as acknowledged in the article, no known development history behind the character, and the coverage that is purported to give rise to notability is a meme about the character's purported difficulty and reappearance in later titles. The article also overstates fan reaction a little which sort of indicates to me that there's not a lot that reviewers or outlets themselves have to say about the character. Overall I'm not sure if the sum total of sources really have enough to say about this character to merit an article. Please also note that the page creator has worked hard to find additional sources on the talk page that may be of use, although these seemed more like gameplay coverage. I concede that the standard with character articles has been difficult to gauge recently so open to views and appreciate the hard work of the page creator: if a merge to the Wii Sports series or game is preferable, let's prioritise that. VRXCES (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a quick Google search turns up significant coverage of Matt in particular as a character of particular cultural importance from the Wii Sports universe. For example, there are plenty of sources discussing him in depth as a character with Wii Sports being only a backdrop:
https://gamerant.com/wii-sports-matt-popularity-explained/
https://www.svg.com/1051111/why-matt-from-wii-sports-has-become-an-iconic-gaming-meme/
There are also sources which describe his cultural relevance, for example this article in Polygon seems to say that not only that he exists, but that he has "widespread popularity":
https://www.polygon.com/23306387/nintendo-switch-sports-matt-wii-meme-input-code BrigadierG (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SVG is unreliable, while Valnet sources like GameRant doesn't help WP:GNG, see WP:VG/RS. Possibly in all, only the Polygon is a good source, thou you need WP:THREE that are sigcov. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't a WP:ITSPOPULAR argument, but the issue is that the depth of coverage relates to a very narrow aspect of the character: the meme. The "widespread popularity" noted in the Polygon article is stated in the context of the meme; and some sources even state that Matt was unnoticed until this point. So I think the live issue is whether all this coverage counteracts the fact that the article and coverage don't have much to say about the other aspects of background, story, development and critical reception normally present in a character article. But then I guess there are articles for memes so this is obviously not clear-cut. VRXCES (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. In my discussions on the talk page, nothing was really sticking out to me in terms of notability. I was going to BLAR or AfD it myself within the coming days myself if nothing came up, but since this is happening now, I may as well lay my thoughts out here. He doesn't seem to be notable per the current sourcing, but I wouldn't be opposed to seeing some of the content here be referenced in Wii Sports' article given Matt did get some coverage, even if most of it doesn't contribute to notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I jumped the gun on that discussion, I had a quick look and assumed that it was settled given the additional sources provided didn't satisfy a view of WP:SOURCESEXIST. VRXCES (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge What's here doesn't work well for GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is a serious lack of significant coverage; unsurprising given Matt is not really characterized, nor does he stand out for any gameplay aspect. He is more like an in-joke amongst fans. IGN is probably the closest to SIGCOV but it's still pretty weak, mostly citing fan posts. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 07:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Invader Zim characters[edit]

List of Invader Zim 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)

No evidence of any notability in what appears to be simply fan-cruft. Sources are blogs, IMDB, a single fanzine and a 404 error. Little value in merging into Invader Zim as no evidence of any encyclopaedic value here. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   13:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vaggie[edit]

Vaggie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article relies mostly about her relationship to Charlie Morningstar. But, despite that, it seems like this [1] is the only good source. BEFORE, most of the sources were from the film reviews and Vaggie was just a passing mention. Fails WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shao Kahn[edit]

Shao Kahn (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)

Almost everything at the reception section now are worthless. This source look like a sigcov [2], but if you actually see it only talks about its story not as a character. Meanwhile, this source is quite useful [3], I dont think its sigcov. Lets say indeed it is, then ot would be the only good source out there, while this one has a little bit content but looks kinda trivia [4]. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Den of Geek is obviously SIGCOV any way you slice it. TheGamer also has an entire listicle devoted to him, and while generally speaking listicles should be avoided, the entire thing is about him so it clearly counts as SIGCOV. That and Game Informer's "Gaming's Crappiest Fathers" piece is about enough for me to say that it does in fact weakly pass GNG, and that's when you ignore the dozens of mentions in Valnet sites like CBR and GameRant. I do think the sourcing is relatively weak, so I wouldn't oppose a merge, but there's enough here for a viable standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 09:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, honestly, it's kind of hard to tell some MK characters if they are notable or not with all of this refbomb and such. This feels like a Whac-A-Mole game. Kung Lao would be my last concern, though this is still a 50/50 for its notability. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, if you're unsure, then you shouldn't be rushing to bring articles to AfD. Please raise issues on the articles' talk pages, maybe bring attention to the issue on WT:VG to see if anyone is willing to help sort things out. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that Kung Lao was previously in AFD, and sources to show notability were posted in there, and on the article's talk page. Kung Fu Man, Cukie and I all agree that most of the MK character articles need a lot of clean-up, as much of their current state are leftovers from the Niemti days. MoonJet (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - But like Sonya Blade, tag it for clean-up. That said, I'm in favor for keeping this for TheGamer, Game Informer and Den of Geek sources, and this may also show some significant coverage. Then we also have some sources discussing Shao Kahn as a boss, the best of which probably being this one, as it does provide some meaningful commentary. And the Game Revolution sources in the article's reception section is pretty good. I wonder if there's any others discussing that controversy too. MoonJet (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Black and White (manga)[edit]

Pokémon Black and White (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This part of Pokemon Adventures doesn't seem to be independently notable from its main series. The article is currently entirely cited to primary sources, and a source search reveals minimal at best sourcing about the arc. There doesn't seem to be enough to justify a split here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebirah[edit]

Ebirah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A minor Kaiju from Godzilla. I can't seem to find much on it, barring two book sources I stumbled on (One of which is already cited in the article.) While these are solid, there just isn't much more than that, and thus I don't see enough justifying a split here. I'd personally recommend a redirect to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep, its debut film, given that seems to be its biggest role. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Japan. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Several other languages have a separate page for Ebirah, most notably Japaneses, which has a lengthy page with numerous citations. Moreover, a Google book search turns up numerous references to Eibrah in credible sources, including additional information that is not currently found in our article. Ebirah has also appeared in other comic books and media beyond what is listed in our article. Eibrah is having a bit of a moment of late, and if anything is only going to appear even more often going forward. I think rather than deleting this article should actually be updated and expanded --Ash-Gaar (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because an article has versions in alternate languages does not mean that it is inherently notable. A recent merge, Charmander, was in more than thirty languages and yet had a unanimous merge consensus. All bar the Japanese article as well are in similar if not worse states than ours. It has some decent dev info in the Japanese article that is certainly better than ours, but I don't think it's enough to justify the article either way given both a complete lack of Reception and the fact the development was not so incredibly well documented that it justifies a separate article on its own, though I am willing to debate that point. In any case, numerous appearances and numerous hits do not contribute to notability either. Most of the book hits I saw were just mentions of the Ebirah movie and associated plot recaps. There's very little in the way of actual commentary on Ebirah in most of those sources. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-direct to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep. As the article stands, its strictly in-universe content with no real world reference. It can show up a billion times on several google hits mean nothing as the character needs real world relevance outside of the Godzilla series. The characters appearance outside of the film seems to be limited to just showing up in video games, other films, comics etc. Without context, all this can be covered in a paragraph within the film article in a Legacy or influence section after. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep, the first film the kaiju appeared in, and the only one in which it had a significant role. Much like in the similar AFD for Manda, simply citing the number of references in the Japanese article is not sufficient when actually looking in-depth at those sources show them to be comprised of a number of official Toho publications, the same book being cited as different sources multiple times, and even a piece or two of fiction. Additionally, the sources are not really being used to support any claim of notability for the creature, but simply providing verification for the plot and production details for the movies that it appeared in. Searching for English sources turns up much of the same kind of sources - reviews, plot summaries, and production details for the films, but nothing showing that Ebirah could be considered notable on its own merits, and not simply covered as part of the articles for the handful of films it appeared in. Rorshacma (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep, largely unsourced original research page. Even if it is notable, it would require a full rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 21:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen (Transformers)[edit]

Fallen (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not have enough WP:SIGCOV or WP:RS. Most articles that mention him are just about the film and don't go in depth on this character. Searching for the alt name Megatronus gives no better results, just TFwiki and sporadic toy announcements from Transformers fan sites. The previous AfD had one keep vote without policy rationale and closed due to the nominator being blocked, the article has not improved since then. Impressive piece of WP:FANCRUFT though, but we're WP:NOTFANDOM. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sources seem to be either announcements or the script of the Revenge of the Fallen movie, which cannot be used as it is a primary source.
Industrial Insect (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nemona[edit]

Nemona (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)

Not a notable character, fails WP:GNG.

Full source analysis follows:
1) Inside Games - press release - primary source - does not count towards notability
2) Automaton Media - news release - not SIGCOV
3) ScreenRant - "marginally reliable source" - fully discusses the character - SIGCOV
4) TheGamer - fully discusses the character - SIGCOV
5) GamesRadar - talks about a few social media posts - not SIGCOV
6) GameRant - talks about a few social media posts - not SIGCOV
7) Inside Games - news release about a Twitter post - not SIGCOV
8) Dexerto - "rarely engages in serious journalism" - does not count towards notability per WP:VG/S
9) Engadget - Review of Scarlet/Violet - not SIGCOV
10) Inside Games - news release about Nemona - not SIGCOV
11) Inside Games - short impressions of several characters - not SIGCOV
12) Automaton Media - DLC plot summary - not SIGCOV

Total SIGCOV: 2 - GNG typically requires several SIGCOV to be notable. Even with ScreenRant and TheGamer, it does not quite cross the threshold. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 17:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, as mentioned below, ScreenRant and GameRant are considered content farms I generally try to avoid, so I am giving it a lot of credit by citing it as proof towards notability. Whether they actually count towards notability is usually debatable even if they are usable for lore explanation purposes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 23:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pokémon Scarlet and Violet – I agree the notability of this subject is flimsy, though I would be willing to change to a keep if just a little bit more SIGCOV was found. I think flat out deletion is a bad idea here, and the page history should be preserved. A redirect to Pokémon Scarlet and Violet seems fair. Per the comments and sources found from Kung Fu Man below, I think I can say weak keep. λ NegativeMP1 20:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not adding my full vote here just yet but I would also suggest either List of Pokémon characters#Paldea or Rivals (Pokémon)#Nemona as alternative redirect targets as the subject of the article are more densely covered there than in the "Scarlet and Violet" article. CaptainGalaxy 00:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect: It seems feasible to cover most information in above mentioned articles. IgelRM (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not the strongest of articles on Wikipedia, but the assertion that, say, #10 is not sigcov isn't supported by WP:GNG. GNG does not have this standard at all, and in fact emphasizes that an article can constitute a show of notability even if it's not the primary subject of the article. That the article is a news release about Nemona is completely immaterial to the fact that the article goes on to provide significant coverage of Nemona. The summary of #11 as short impressions is also incredibly misleading. Not only is the author's impression of Nemona the title of the article, not only is it the intro to the article, but of the approximately 27 paragraphs, the article spends 40 percent of those paragraphs talking about Nemona. It seems like your objection is not that it's short impressions, but that these impressions exist in an article that discusses other characters as well - a personal issue, and not an issue relevant to GNG. Furthermore, #12 has a DLC plot summary, but it is not strictly plot summary in any way. To my knowledge, the plot is not about Nemona becoming unusually strong unusually fast, this is discussion by the author of the article about her growth and how it relates to the persona she developed. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Note to closing admin: Cukie Gherkin (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • Comment When it comes to Screen Rant, specifically, I will say that WP:RSP listing it as a "marginally reliable source" is not exactly the full story. It is a low-quality source (to a large extent a listicle content farm) whose uses on Wikipedia are limited. It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis. It is likewise not a source that should be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight. It's also worth noting that WP:RSP links to WP:VGRS#Valnet, which says In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability outside of periods they were considered reliable or prior to being purchased by Valnet, due to concerns over undue weight and content farming. (Screen Rant was purchased by Valnet in 2015, according to our article). TompaDompa (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a bit of analysis in scholarly source here but it is just a bachelor thesis, so barely acceptable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do love sources like these, but yeah, if it's just a bachelor thesis, the only real angle I think can show it's worthwhile to use is if the author has a history of published material, a history of commonly cited material, and/or the thesis is frequently cited. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I do feel the source analysis of #11 is a bit unfair, as a good chunk of the article is just about her, and it does give both initial and post impressions regarding her character. #5 also offers some commentary, albeit light, about the character and I do think gives a decent commentary on fan reaction. There is this article from Comic Book Resources too, which while gameplay leaning does actually discuss her in the context of past rivals (and yes I know CBR blah blah Valnet but it's an editorial). Anime Corner also has a full article, and I've used the website source in a GAN.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm dubious about Anime Corner; the writers are entirely freelancers. It's about one step removed from a blog. If people really think it's a reliable source then I'll go along with it, though I still don't think it would remove all notability concerns. ScreenRant and CBR are both ValNet which means we'd be relying on at least one content farm piece to prove GNG is passed. As is widely known, content farms do not care whether something is "important", and will write an article on a single bean on the ground of a game if it will draw SEO traffic.
    I machine translated #11 and it is very, very shallow coverage. It essentially sums up to "Nemona was more crazy about Pokemon battles than I expected, but is otherwise what I expected". I simply do not believe it would qualify as SIGCOV in a million years. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 04:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like this is misstating what is said. The article says that she matched the certain expectations they had, but that they didn't expect this angle of her character. They also identified that her battle mania went above any other character prior. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I feel editorials from Valnet are fine for notability usage, especially if they can augment existing sources (the CBR and Anime Corner sources work together), or we can illustrate the author has work in other publications. As for Anime Corner itself it's under "Other reliable" on WP:VG/S. Regarding reference 11, while I'm not going to sit here and argue it's somehow massive, it is the primary focus of the article and received several paragraphs, so arguing that it's basically a "short impression" does feel inaccurate Zx.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to paste the (admittedly shoddy) machine translation here for reference:
Extended content
So, the first person is "Nemo". As I said at the beginning, my impression before its release was that it was a "reliable older sister trainer." A friend of the main character and a senior Pokémon trainer, he has a bright and energetic personality, and simply loves Pokémon battles. He's a classic character, just like the one pictured in the picture. Even during his first battle with the main character, he kindly advises, "This is my first Pokemon battle! I hope you enjoy it!" However, there was a somewhat fearless smile on his face as he challenged the battle, and I thought that as a senior trainer, he would not let you win easily, and that he must not let his guard down. Now, as for my impressions after interacting with Nemo after its release, well... it was mostly right, right? He's bright, energetic, and reliable. Yes, most of it was just as I had impressions. Except that the level of "I just love Pokemon battles!" was dozens of times more than I expected. He challenges every trainer he sees to a fight, says "Let's fight!" during battles, and is aware of his battle-crazy side, and the more he gets into battles, the more he gets involved in battles. The word "Nemo Victims' Association", which is made up of people who were killed in the attack, started popping up. Anyway, I love Pokemon battles too much! Nowadays, my impression of Nemo is that of a "battle junkie". It is also at a level unparalleled in any previous series. And the best part is the line "It will bear fruit" that he says every time he fights the main character. He senses talent in the main character and is trying to develop him into a trainer who can compete on an equal footing with him... Who could have predicted that people would say on the internet that Nemo "looks like Hisoka from HUNTER x HUNTER"?
  • I will let people gauge for themselves if this is SIGCOV that can support an article, it's more of an explanation of her personality than analysis of the character. It's simply telling people how the character is like. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 00:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's not the extent of the article's discussion of Nemona. The first paragraph of the article comments on their feelings about her being an older sister type. The next paragraph talks about how they appreciated that Nemona turned out to be more than that. They also frame the article about talking about the gap (gap being a term typically used in Japanese to refer to contradictory personality traits). Even in your quote, the author makes the point that her battle craziness is to an extent unprecedented in the series. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that even adding a translation of a part of an article might be copyright infringing, so if it is, please feel free to remove it. It is only intended for reference purposes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 00:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mind uploading in fiction[edit]

Mind uploading in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic is likely notable (see SFE), but our execution is terrible. First, the prose part is pretty much unreferenced (the article is tagged with OR warning for 5 years now), then a gigantic list of random examples (mostly unreferenced too), failing WP:OR/WP:V/WP:IPC/MOS:TRIVIA/WP:NLIST/WP:NOTTVTROPES/etc. Mind uploading does not have a section about 'fiction/culture', just mentions this article in lead. Looking at article's history, this was split (exorcised...) from the main article in the old 00's, and of course it had no references or such ([5]). The article hasn't been improved since, quality wise, just accumulated more fancruft. WP:TNT is required. For now, this can be WP:ATD-Rredirected to the main article, with no prejudice for this being restored as an article - but it will need to be rewritten from scratch using reliable sources like the SFE article I've linked. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet Academy[edit]

Starfleet Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic may become notable in a year or two when the new series premiers, but right now all we have is a poorly referenced plot summary that fails WP:GNG. BEFORE shows nothing but plot summaries and an occasional reference to video games, upcoming TV show or some comic books. For now this probably should be a disambig page. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify as per nom. While the article as it stands is an extremely crufty in-universe-style discussion of a fictional locale, the extensive hatnoting does lend it to being turned into a disambiguation page. Notably, while the current hatnote simply links to List of Star Trek novels, I can see that being fleshed out into an entire Novels and Novel Series section in a Starfleet Academy dab page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment without looking at the page, Starfleet Academy is a fictional setting in an exceptionally well documented fictional universe. It appears in, or is referenced by, multiple TV series, movies, novels, and games of various stripes. While the Star Trek universe doesn't have the ridiculous amount of academic coverage the Buffyverse has, I'm relatively certain that a thorough search will identify enough to build a single, comprehensive article something like Iron Man, with possible other WP:SS children to cover its appearance in particular media when such appearances are themselves worthy of an article. Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, now more comments: First, the current state of an article can't "fail the GNG" per NEXIST. A topic either fails or passes GNG, and the topic clearly passes. Unfortunately, DUE means that to have an article on Starfleet Academy as a supertopic, most of it is going to have to be about the upcoming TV show(s), because that's what RSes are overwhelmingly covering. Not particularly happy about that, because I think there's a lot more to it than that. Our coverage of Kobayashi Maru, for instance, has RS references to officer training at Starfleet Academy, some of which could be integrated into an ideal article on this topic. Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, the first part of your argument to seems to counter an argument never made. They never claimed "the current state" isn't notable, or anything violating NEXIST. They simply stated that the subject, as is right now, is not notable, but that there's hope for future coverage to develop because the franchise is active. Big difference. Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Undecided so far, but with an endless number of Star Trek article and it easily being a plausible search term, I would think merging and/or redirecting would be the right way to go here over outright deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 18:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Starfleet#Starfleet Academy. Minor fancruft, though I would not doubt Starfleet itself is a notable subject. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 19:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call. I don't edit the content area and didn't realize that article existed. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Starfleet#Starfleet Academy. Too little content/coverage to sustain a standalone article, but there is a plausible search term and place to work on improving it too. Sergecross73 msg me
  • Redirect to Starfleet#Starfleet Academy. This isn't treated as a separate topic by sources. I would support a WP:HATNOTE for any additional disambiguation. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonya Blade[edit]

Sonya Blade (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)

I did try cleaning up all of those sources that have no commentary, unreliable, and that talks only about listicles/rankings/hotties ranks, but there's more. After all of that, I felt like Sonya now has zero WP:Sigcov. The only valuable sources were the 2 pdf/journal at the end that only talks about her custome at MK9. That's it. Per WP:BEFORE, most of the sources appears to be only like this [6] [7] [8] [9][10] that provides almost nothing about the character and are usually not a Sigcov. The rest sources were just her announcement to the game and all of these just usually say "WoW Sonya Is Back In New Trailer, so coOl". GreenishPickle! (🔔) 05:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. WCQuidditch 06:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Her current reception is untenable. This was the only viable SIGCOV I could find, which falls short of GNG standards. Her article has definitely been WP:REFBOMBed to give the appearance of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 15:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also found this source: [11] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just from a quick search, I've been able to find [12], [13], and [14]. While three is not a large amount of sigcov, the fact that they were easily found suggests to me that this is probably not the extent of what is available. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Valnet, but [15] [16] both discuss the character in the film to a significant extent. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per the sources Cukie Gherkin has provided in here, plus the aforementioned sources I've added to the article at the beginning of this month after you previously tagged the article for notability. WP:GNG, WP:THREE and WP:NVGC are more than satisfied here. Besides, I don't get why you're doubting the notability of Sonya Blade, of all characters, arguably the Chun-Li of Mortal Kombat. MoonJet (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just added the Mary Sue and Vice sources to the article. MoonJet (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From reading the Vice source, it seems it's about Ronda Rousey, not Sonya Blade the character. In other words, it is critical of Rousey's performance as a voice actor and the game developers' casting decisions, with only a few comments on Blade's significance that don't add up to SIGCOV overall. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a reminder, WP:GNG specifically states that an article need not be about the subject in order to be usable to show notability. The fact that it was Sonya in particular was one part of why she is so against Rousey portraying her, and she goes on to explain why. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's a common misconception that sources need to be solely or primarily about about the subject to show notability, despite GNG stating otherwise. Besides, the Vice source really is about both Ronda Rousey and Sonya. I know WP:THREE is pushed sometimes. Well, the three best sources, IMO, are The Mary Sue, GamesRadar and the PDF document The female characters in the game Mortal Kombat: An aesthetic analysis from the stereotyped image of a woman. So, even if you feel Vice doesn't contribute to significant coverage, there's still those other sources. MoonJet (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The criticism of WP:REFBOMBing is valid here. I want to give this the benefit of the doubt that this might still have WP:SIGCOV. But it's hard to assess given the amount of tangential information added to this article to pad it. A clean-up would be a good start, and I think there's a consensus for that. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you be willing to weigh in on the sources linked here? Honestly, a lot of fighting game character articles are refbombed, which is going to be a process of cleaning up across the board. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it needs clean-up too, especially the "appearances" section, which definitely is in need of some trimming. This seems to be a left over from the older Wikipedia days, where certain users (myself included, I have to admit) over-cited character articles. That said, I'm in favor of keeping the article per my above arguments, but tagging it for clean-up. MoonJet (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair I put more of the blame on Niemti and his tendency to overblow everything he can than you. It's also why I've been hesitant to AfD Mortal Kombat subjects because until the junk it cleaved out it's hard to know just how much of it is actually useful and give a fair image if a AfD is necessary or not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up at least temporarily, so the article can be improved. I'm basing this on the significant coverage in "Sonya Blade finally feels like a real character in Mortal Kombat X". This provides the kind of in-depth analysis needed for a separate article, even if we would still need more sources like this. Some of the other sources are more borderline, but I'm convinced there are multiple reliable sources with significant coverage, lost between the padding. AFD isn't clean-up, but hopefully editors can keep improving the article. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World government in fiction[edit]

World government in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the usual fancrufty mess (similar to Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Political ideas in science fiction). Let's see. Zero references for the prose part, only few footnotes for the very long list of examples (99% of which is unreferenced). While the topic might be notable (might; my BEFORE failed to locate anything good), the current execution fails WP:V, WP:OR, WP:IPC/MOS:TRIVIA, as well as WP:NLIST/WP:LISTN. This was split from World government in 2005, then completely removed from that article, and this one hasn't improved in ~20 years - it is pure WP:NOTTVTROPES. At best, we could WP:ATD-R it back to World government, except there is no section to target(update: there is now, but it is unreferenced - I split it from the lead), and not a single ref discussing this concept. Maybe United Nations in popular culture, which is somewhat better, could be a plausible redirect instead? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Dust (Hazbin Hotel)[edit]

Angel Dust (Hazbin Hotel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. This source [17] is a bit useful for addition, but isn't a sigcov at all. Per WP:BEFORE, only this source could be useful [18], but nothing else. What we have sources now at the reception were just the reviews of the film itself and listicles/rankings only. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reviews of "Masquerade", the Angel Dust-centric fourth episode, and the B-plot of "Welcome to Heaven", the sixth episode, delve into the characterisation of the character and voice actor performance, passing WP:SIGCOV. 2001:BB6:3A30:D700:5195:FE6F:1E81:6F85 (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not really. The reviews are for the episodes themselves, and as far as my Google search goes, none go into detail on the character. Per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES: Notability requires the presence of significant treatment of a subject in reliable independent sources, not just the mere presence of the searched-for term. Also, per WP:FICT: Specifically, fictional elements are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage in independent secondary sources about the fictional element. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Spinixster (chat!) 01:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a case of something like Porygon lacking an article despite Dennō Senshi Porygon having an article. Having episodes dedicated to a character can help, but there needs to be actual coverage on the element outside of whatever they're associated with. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per WP:TOOSOON Maybe this character will be important for independent coverage in the future, but not now. Samoht27 (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support would be to redirect/move the page back into draftspace/merge the reception into List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters, right? I agree this character should receive a page at one point, but maybe later in the year/next year when there is just a little bit more coverage. 2001:BB6:3A30:D700:55D1:AA1:430B:8A45 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do believe that this character will likely have coverage in the future, so to merge into List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters would be optimal. Samoht27 (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters. Most of the sources are primary sources, Decider is unreliable, and the rest I can’t really find on WP:RSP Brachy08 (Talk) 10:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters. Most sources include passing mention and no in-depth coverage specifically on the character. The information, however, could definitely be worked into the list. Maybe some time in the future, the continued popularity of this character could warrant an article, but it is simply WP:TOOSOON to include one with so little coverage. ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 17:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters. There are not enough sites, besides Decider, that cover the character specifically. --Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish comic book characters[edit]

List of Jewish comic book 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)

This list seems to be an unreferenced fan-cruft list. None of the entries have citations, and I don't think this subject is notable. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just easily found and added a bunch of references. Searching for a name and "Jew" is not hard to do. I don't see how it could possibly be controversial to say someone is Jewish, especially not a fictional character. Dream Focus 03:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think you would benefit from reviewing the literature, including that I cited above. Also, your argument doesn't logically follow: the nom cited notability. I addressed notability. You argue that a list of Jewish comic characters is not notable when I've just demonstrated that Jewish comic characters, as a topic, are notable. That's textbook LISTN: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Even given your habit of suggesting that surmountable problems make an article deletion-worthy, that's not even what you're arguing here. I'm puzzled; your arguments, even when I disagree with them, are usually much stronger than this. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources from Jclemens, theme is commonly discussed in media.
FortunateSons (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page contains ample references and garners public interest. Progoees (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTN and the sources provided by JClemens as it shows the characters being discussed in the media/reliable sources. Also, deletion is not cleanup. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia (Darkstalkers)[edit]

Felicia (Darkstalkers) (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)

Going to be direct: this is yet another Niemti effort, and has the same hallmarks as the previous articles: an overreliance on lists that say next to nothing (often how sexy the character is), sources cited for saying more than they actually are, and ultimately nothing said about her character.

Felicia is a very recognizable character. One of the most recognizable ones from the Darkstalkers franchise, alongside Morrigan. However, recognizable does not equate to *discussion*. Even the recently added academic article added has nothing to do with Felicia, but commentary on cosplay in regards to decency laws, and not an examination of Felicia in those regards (Hell even by the article's own admission the cosplay was changed from the character's appearance).

Sadly...you can only say "Felicia is mostly naked" so many times. That alone doesn't merit an article. C. Viper was compared to a King of Fighters character in terms of design by a massive number of publications...and just that. And that didn't survive an AfD. Multiple Dead or Alive female characters also had some variation of "they're sexy" as the crux of their whole article, and they also didn't pass notability standards.

I would really like Felicia to have something, but after extensive searching...all we have is "she's mostly naked and sexy for it" and "she's one of the most recognizable of the lot because she gets reused a lot". That's not a base to build around when all the commentary is the same. Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above reasonings. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. I don't find enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as List of Darkstalkers characters, the proposed Merge target, is also up for a AFD deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Darkstalkers characters[edit]

List of Darkstalkers 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)

Less than a week ago, I merged the contents of this list into Darkstalkers#Characters after condensing it down. However, Zxcvbnm objected, citing the previous AfD's consensus.

However, I'm not arguing overlying notability for the characters as a whole separate of the franchise (which is a concern on its own vs reception for individual characters, but I digress), but instead that the list itself does not need to be a separate entity. As you can see from the link above, it fits perfectly inside the series article, without making it too large, the key concerns for such a split here normally.

I don't feel in its current form a massive list is necessary, and I don't forsee it getting expanded further (the last new character added was Dee in 2005, almost 20 years ago). As it stands, there's no need for a separate article to compound our already overflowing list problem. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: For the sake of transparency, this was the version of the list's page prior to reorganizing, which not only included excessive detail randomly, but also random gameplay bits, trivial reception from past merges, and some very questionable sources (EventHubs, "Flying Omelette"?). The goal of the original reduction was to aim closer to more streamlined lists, and then cite any information as needed. This got interrupted mid-cleanup efforts.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assuming no information is being lost, I am not opposed to a merge to Darkstalkers#Characters. CaptainGalaxy 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2: Electric Boogaloo Similar to the last AfD, deletion is not cleanup and there's no particular reason a character list should not exist, as these sorts of articles are VERY well established on Wikipedia. It was shown that the article can certainly stand on its own if improved, as the cast of Darkstalkers is one of the more well-known in video game history. "Overflowing list problem" is a personal opinion and it's impossible to tell whether or not it will be improved, as you are no fortune-teller. That's simply a WP:NOEFFORT argument. If you really want to see it fixed, your time's better spent fixing it than arguing it should be removed. See also WP:BEBOLD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 20:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zx your argument falls into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because "other articles" are established does not mean that one cannot be merged. This not a "No Effort" approach or a lack of "Being Bold", that's an honest observation from someone that has put a fair share of research into this subject. Additionally this is not an attempt at "cleanup" but to make an argument that the list itself does not need to be separate from the parent, which is fair game for AfD to determine consensus. So I will ask that you assume some good faith, and to not be rude.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not fall under OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because I am not arguing this article should be kept because it's the same as another particular article. I said that this TYPE of article is common, which implies it is typical under Wikipedia policy. Unless you are arguing that all character lists should not exist, which is not really an issue to be decided in a single AfD, but something like RfC. I didn't mean to marginalize the effort you put into the merger, but cutting something down tends to be easier than building it up. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 23:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does feel like the argument fits into a form of OTHERSTUFF, because the argument's being made that similar lists are considered "acceptable" on their own on wikipedia, which is debatable on a case by case basis. And I feel significant effort was done to maintain the reader has an understanding of each character in the context of the franchise. If all the information is retained in the series article as it is in the list, how is any information lost?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This makes the other article too long if put there. Having it separate makes it more readable. Kung Fu Man made the article in October 2008‎. It was far longer through most of its existence. In December 2023, Kung Fu Man reduced it from 84K to 15K. [20] 104 references down to 7. I think some of the referenced information where reliable sources talked about the characters should be included. Also the overview chart showing which games had which notable characters should've been kept. Dream Focus 21:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the refs appear to have shuffled off to standalone character articles so no information appears to have been lost. — Masem (t) 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is only one standalone character article, Morrigan Aensland, the rest are just redirects to here. Kung Fu Man seems to have merged them over here last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baby_Bonnie_Hood&diff=1154824604&oldid=1154823810 Dream Focus 21:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Given KFM's work on character articles and cleaning up bad sourcing, I trust that these trims and removal of sources followed in line with eliminating sources that barely touched on the subject, along with excessive primary sourcing. This judging from a scan of the ore trimmed version and where sources were used. Masem (t) 23:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I will say that I would have objected more to the mergers of the various characters if I knew that the character list was set to be merged too. Moving them all to a list is due weight. Moving them all to the series article is undue weight. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 23:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is an important point that bears a lot of scrutiny. Non-transparently planning to eliminate content via repeated mergers is arguably tendentious editing. You want 'em all gone? Fine: nominate them all. Don't merge them all editorially... and then force a re-merge in AfD so there's very little left. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This, plus many perfectly reliable sources demonstrating WP:LISTN were purged from the character list for some reason and I frankly have no clue why they were removed, with the only thing I can think of being to make the article seem less notable for a deletion or merge. Why purge the character list from HG101, or GamesRadar? It makes no sense; this is literally a list of characters from the game, so it's absolutely relevant. I tried to add a bit back in, but I'm of half a mind to revert the article gutting entirely. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 12:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You know, considering that you had just previously took umbrage over the implication that you were applying double standards based on whether an article whose notability is being questioned is one you made or not, I find it kind of distasteful to go around and suggest an editor in good standing is, in essence, intentionally doing harm to the project for nefarious purposes. I don't think it's right to show such offense over that if you do not extend the same level of courtesy to other users. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Policy and guidelines argue against unnecessary splits of material, and the nom demonstrates that a merged article is nowhere close to a size problem where a split would be required. Add that there are no non-primary sources, and that supports including the content in the main article to avoid notability issues with the list. Zxcvbnm's argument amounts to a form of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; character lists like this with minimal sourcing are tolerated but I would not consider them widely accepted.Masem (t) 21:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Speedy Keep The topic of "List of X characters" is "X" so as long as Darkstalkers exists List of Darkstalkers characters is not subject to deletion on notability grounds. NOTINHERITED doesn't apply, because this is the same topic covered in multiple articles. Now, if things fail V or NOR, that's a different issue, but usually one that can be addressed by editing rather than deletion. More to the point: of all the problems in Wikipedia, who thinks that collapsing character lists into their franchises is in the top 10? Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clemens, not a single thing there addressed my argument.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I suppose. What precise DEL#REASON applies? Jclemens (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Content fork in this case: the information here can fit inside the series article without a loss of material, and stuff like development and reception would apply just as much to the series as the list. No information would be lost, and no need to keep them separate. Articles can still be spun out from the series page just fine also if notability is established for a character later on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing how a character list is an impermissible WP:CFORK. It's neither redundant nor a POV fork. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's currently an unnecessary fork, and an argument can be further made that it strengthens the body of the series article as a result versus separate from it, and again the dev and reception info would be echoed between the series article and list. It's not a Street Fighter or Guilty Gear situation where we have entry upon entry for many of the characters: Darkstalkers at its core only has two truly "full" games between Darkstalkers/Night Warriors and the many iterations of Vampire Savior.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If all you want is to merge the articles, why is this a nomination for deletion instead of just a merge request? It seems like doing this at AfD just makes the discussion more stressful. Toughpigs (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Information from the article is still in the series article currently, so "Redirect" is a valid option here. But more importantly is that it was quickly obvious this was going to be a contentious subject. AfD is viable for this sort of discussion, especially compared to how much of a mess merge discussions have become where they stretch months on end before requesting a closer, at least as far as VG project articles go.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you've just admitted that there is no reason this content is impermissible: No WP:CFORK violation exists, no other WP:DEL#REASON applies. Am I wrong? If so, please point me out the policy-based rationale for starting this deletion discussion. I'm just not seeing it. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the content on the list can fit into the main series article just fine without a loss of information; the current series article demonstrates that. Can we not engage in wikilawyering?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikilawyering is defined as "Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities". Asking for a basic policy reason when you gave none (besides "it's not necessary", more of a WP:USELESS argument) is not a technicality. There's something wrong if you think that anyone who dares argue a different opinion is being a Wikilawyer. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 12:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Upgrading my keep to speedy keep per #3: no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. Look, I'm fine with using AfD as articles for discussion--I quite favor it, in fact--but the price of entry is that you have to provide at least one rationale by which the target article could be deleted. I've asked. You haven't. So you can take this to a talk page discussion, but AfD should not be asked to compel a merge outcome when there is no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone point me in the right direction of the policy towards where a list merits an article? Or...is there any policy on lists? Putting aside the threshold notability of the parent subject matter and the items that sit under it, am I correct that it's then just a pragmatic debate about whether the list is sufficiently long, detailed or complex to justify separation from the article about the subject matter? That stands to reason to me. If so, I imagine the issue is then just a disagreement over whether listifying things is preferred in any particular case; whilst I don't really like lists with few sources at all, that doesn't mean it attracts deletion policy unless it is short, lacks depth, and/or could easily sit within the parent article. VRXCES (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vrxces See WP:NLIST/WP:LISTN. And no, it's not precise. Maybe we need to have an RfC on estabilishing criteria for lists of characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, there is an enduring issue with notability for articles and lists relating to fictional characters and more guidance is needed. VRXCES (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The closest thing we have is WP:NLIST which is as vague to when lists can be made into articles. However, I know that fictional character lists without a significant amount of secondary sources on development and reception of the characters, and excessive primary details, are only grudgingly accepted across WP. Masem (t) 02:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per my comment in last AfD which was just a month ago. I am also not impressed by the stealthy attempt to delete by redirecting that took place at Felicia (Darkstalkers), which I now restored. That article deserves a proper AfD. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. I've added something discusing the cast as a group to the reception section, which, well, did not exist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLAR-ing is supposed to be a viable alternative to AfD if we feel it's reasonable. That's not a "stealthy attempt to delete", that's the results of a very length WP:BEFORE and examination of the sources, it wasn't done in bad faith.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then use AfD. That was not a good topic to BLAR. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLAR is specifically for uncontroversial topics, not just ones you think are reasonable. As WP:BLAR says, ""Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial [...] cases of blanking and redirecting." The majority of video game characters should be considered controversial to merge unless the page is WP:ALLPLOT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 14:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. It's not about whether the list meets LISTN or not, it's about whether there needs to be a split in the first place. KFM has proven that this list reasonably fits within the Darkstalkers article without disrupting it, so I don't see a need for an unnecessary content fork here. Arguments above have been ignoring the core argument of this AfD, which is about whether or not this split is necessary. NLIST isn't being argued here, that can be established, it's whether or not we really need this article to be separated. Based off what I'm seeing, I don't think a split is necessary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: I am unsure if you are aware, but the article was pared down to a tiny fraction of its former size prior to being "merged", including removal of numerous WP:RS. It fits in its current, barely-there state, but not in its previous fleshed-out one. I don't think much has been "proven" here at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 12:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any cut characters. The only issue I see is that RS were removed, and if that is the case, simply add them back to the article. One or two articles per character (Which seems pretty unlikely) should not bloat the article to a significant extent. This seems like a matter that can be resolved by simple editing, and if the article does in fact achieve significant bloat by adding the sources to its current state, then that can be a separate split discussion. The size is manageable, and further discussion should have been done before a BLAR revert. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: This is what you really want to defend as "fleshed out"? Really? The one with Eventhubs, "FlyingOmelete", and leftover gameguide commentary from past merges?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources really were unreliable, yes - there were a number of blatant blogs that failed WP:USERG outright. But you are cherry-picking the absolute worst sources that for sure should have been removed. You also deleted many usable sources, so it was, in the most charitable interpretation, a rushed, "baby out with the bathwater" situation. Why was a full article on Anakaris from VentureBeat written by a WIRED journalist deleted despite being SIGCOV? Such things completely torpedo your argument that all the cleanup you did was of poor sources, and that the characters cannot be expanded within the list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 14:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did jump in on this during an ongoing effort to clean it up and rework the series article as a whole, a long term effort not unlike those you do. The list was merged less than a weak ago, and had an AfD disrupt things to boot. Stuff like VentureBeat wasn't worked back in *yet*, but it also doesn't say a lot and can be taken down to a sentence. For comparison, the List of generation I Pokémon is being worked on by cogsan, and many of those Pokemon undoubtedly have at least one SIGCOV article somewhere, but one also has to consider the list as a whole. That said it feels like some of this could be ironed out on my talk page instead of muddying this discussion further.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a longterm effort at cleanup, gutting and/or blanking this article is the very wrong way to go about it. It should remain untouched, and a new draft created elsewhere until it is ready to replace the existing content. At that point you can start a merge discussion using the draft as evidence. It still doesn't mean deleting this article wholesale is merited at all regardless of how poor quality you think it is right now. Currently there is no replacement for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 16:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep On one hand, I strongly agree with the nominator that the listification approach can be redundant and often produces poor-quality articles where the subject matter is better canvassed within the primary article. But in the context of this article, editors worked to improve the quality and merge non-notable characters to it, stripping the pretty wide (if highly flawed) sourcing in the purpose. Fighting games also strike me as having appropriate separated character articles because the characters tend to have significant attention as the narrative and gameplay anchor for the games. Although noting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS there is a commonplace practice of having character lists accompany the article: such as for Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, King of Fighters, which originally didn't look too dissimilar to how this used to be honestly. It feels like there's not a settled approach to the future of this that has been exposed by the deletion nomination, and because there is not a self-evident notability issue the direction should be to err on the side of caution. No expert on this stuff though - as stated above there's not a lot of guidance on where the best approach lies for character articles and fictional lists. VRXCES (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @VRXCES Offering some food for thought, but I feel a big thing to consider with that comparison is that MK, Street Fighter and KoF also have had 10+ games each to build canon from for their characters. Darkstalkers, as a series has only had two: Night Warriors is a re-release of Darkstalkers with two characters and the bosses playable, while every game after is just a modified version of Vampire Savior, story and all. When distilled there really isn't much story per character, or traits.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who has done searches for Darkstalkers characters, there's very little sigcov on the cast. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AFD2.0, we were just debating this article a month ago. I'm relisting the discussion as opinion is split between those editors advocating Keeping the article and those supporting a Merge. One editor states that the nominator is arguing for a Merge, is that accurate? No one is supporting an outright deletion, right?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The nominator is very clearly arguing for a merge, as they stated "does not need to be a separate entity. As you can see from the link above, it fits perfectly inside the series article", which is a merge rather than deletion argument. They acknowledge the notability of the cast but nevertheless believe it should be merged as after they cleaned up what they believed to be poor sources, the article became a hollow shell. In its current state, the article could be merged with nothing lost, however, many of the sources they removed are perfectly good, viable SIGCOV and their deletions resulted in a net loss of information. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 22:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sigcov was removed? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zx I'm just going to be blunt, that's hogwash. The issue is WP:NOPAGE: the information in this article can fit neatly inside Darkstalkers#Plot (as it currently does), and the development and reception info is going to be the same for the series as for the list. There's no need for a separate list.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then, I know claims don't mean much without evidence, so here's proof of the significant sources that are not in this version. As mentioned above, an article on Anakaris was removed, and the significant coverage from Den of Geek is still AWOL for no apparent reason, despite also having a full character list of the original roster and a bit of analysis. The character list from Hardcore Gaming 101 was purged to the aether until I added it back myself. At the time of the AfD the character roster from GamesRadar+ wasn't there either. Some of the articles were truly trivial/unreliable coverage, but yeah - baby with the bathwater. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 10:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to ask a dumb question, but wouldn't Den of Geek's article make more sense in the series article given it's reception on, well, the series? As for Anakaris' it is it's entirely about the character's gameplay which would be hard to work in; I mean many characters on List of generation I Pokémon have similar articles, would you argue those should be worked into there as well?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be used for both articles, certainly. I am unsure why it would be disqualified from use in a character list however, as significant coverage is not required to be the focus of the source material. And "entirely about the character's gameplay"... it's perfectly reasonable to use an article about the gameplay as a source. I don't see anywhere in policy that bans such a thing, frankly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 18:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. while gameplay coverage from secondary sources should be incorporated into our video game coverage, we don't want to pull gameplay from primary sources like gameplay guides. — Masem (t) 19:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's clearly some confusion here about what WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE actually means. It states that writers should "Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context". It's not a blanket prohibition of anything talking about gameplay, only specifies that guides should not pop up apropos of nothing, like just wanting to write a FAQ for the cool new game that just released. None of the sources I gave are primary; all are secondary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - So, it seems the main argument here is that the article isn't "needed." But on the other hand, I don't see any convincing reasons on why the article shouldn't exist either. In its current state, you can argue that it fits fine in the series article, but I also see WP:POTENTIAL for some expansion. There are some articles discussing some of its characters, such as from Game Rant, The Gamer and GamesRadar. MoonJet (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spaghetti Taco[edit]

Spaghetti Taco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't deserve it's own article- It only appeared in five episodes and has no notable significance. I think this article should be deleted. WizardGamer775 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WizardGamer775 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it has a significant enough cultural impact to deserve it's own article Fwedthebwead (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Something would have enough cultural impact if it was not only limited to five episodes. Something that would have cultural impact, for example is Ellen DeGeneres in 1997 "coming out" on her show- this led the way to the concept of coming out for LGBT. But spaghetti tacos has no significance.
    I see that you're new to Wikipedia so welcome by the way. WizardGamer775 (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the welcome! The reason I originally made this article was because I read the article for Yakisoba-pan, which reminded me of the spaghetti taco. I just wanted to put it in the see also section Fwedthebwead (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could put it into the article for Yakisoba-pan as a separate section e.g. In popular Culture instead of an article. WizardGamer775 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright that sounds good :D Sorry for inconveniencing you! Fwedthebwead (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the critereon Wikipedia usually uses to decide if something deserves or doesn't deserve an article is significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, i.e. WP:Notability. Which is mostly independent from how often it appeared in its original source. We have one such source in the article, I believe. Are there enough out there to support a full article? Checking this should be done by the nominator before the nomination as explained in WP:BEFORE. What were the results? (The Google news search looks pretty promising). Does anyone else want to look now? Daranios (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 19:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge. I believe there's just enough material for a stand-alone article in accordance with WP:Notability, even if a light one, and no ideal merge target suggests itself. If the sources are felt as being to brief, a merge to the suggested Yakisoba-pan might be ok, based on e.g. this article, which suggests a loose connection. Daranios (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge This doesn't pass the threshold for WP:SIGCOV. Even so, it's a WP:NOPAGE situation where there isn't much to say. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge per Shooterwalker. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 05:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and oppose merge or redirect to Yakisoba-pan. Meets WP:GNG, including the 2010 feature article in The New York Times which was widely syndicated and the 2022 Mashed article which also helps to demonstrate that there has been WP:SUSTAINED interest in spaghetti tacos as a dish over time. I have added a few other sources to the article, and there are oodles of recipes available on the Internet; I've cited the "Fiesta spaghetti taco" recipe on the Betty Crocker website. None of these articles mention "yakisoba-pan" which is why I'm opposed to that particular merge (and FWIW, I'm not convinced the quality of the sources in the other article are necessarily better than the sources cited here). Finally, if this article is kept, it should be moved to "Spaghetti taco" with a small "t" which currently is a redirect to iCarly. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete this isn't a notable character The Trash Compactor (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE. — Maile (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's got an article in the NY Times, the Independent [21] and the Pocono Reocrd [22]. Decent sourcing, I think we have GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are enough reliable sources available to satisfy notability. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scion (comics)[edit]

Scion (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comic series, short-lived (4-years), unreferenced since 2007, my BEFORE failed to find anything useful. Fails WP:GNG, WP:V. If nobody can rescue this, potential redirects targets per WP:ATD-R: [[ Mark Alessi]] (co-creator), CrossGen (publisher). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United States of America. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Looks like Publishers Weekly reviewed the third, fourth, and fifth trade paperback collections of the series. Those were the best sources I was able to find, though, and per the WP:GNG, would collectively count as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Rorshacma (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 04:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found a good source in the Daily Oklahoman that mentions it was nominated at one point for two Harvey awards. Nominations aren't something that would give notability on their own, but this is a major enough award to imply that there is likely more coverage out there. I'll keep digging. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 14:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is frustrating - I found some sourcing but it's kind of light and a lot of it is reviewing it in relation to the overall CrossGen universe. The Harvey noms suggests that more coverage exists but what I can find doesn't really do a great job of backing all of that up. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 14:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a good alternative would be to create a page on the entire Sigilverse? There's enough info and general coverage to justify pulling that info out to its own, particularly as I note that this isn't the only title with some issues with sourcing. Of course someone would have to make this and I'm not really flush with time like I used to be. If the choice is to create the page then this could redirect with history to the main company page until someone does that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 14:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's the same issue I was running into looking for sources - there are a number of sources discussing CrossGen as a whole, but the only coverage in them on Scion, in specific, was usually only very brief mentions. If not a whole article on the Sigilverse, perhaps expanding CrossGen#Sigilverse to be more than just a list of the titles included in it could work as well? Rorshacma (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've nominted this on pl wiki (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2024:03:11:Dziedzic (komiks)). One editor there found a source: [23]/[24] which has a passing mention of this, which I'l quote fully - it is just two sentences, but it has a bit of analysis/reception: One of the most intriguing epic fantasies was CrossGen’s Scion , which began in 2000 and ended abruptly in 2004 with the demise of the publisher. Th e story combines romance and politics, as a prince and princess from opposing dynasties fall in love but also fi ght for the freedom of the “lesser races.”. Perhaps we can save this? Nomnation, passing assessment in SIGCOV but relible source? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I believe the secondary sources listed here and in the article in total allow to write a reasoable article and therefore fulfill the notability requirements. The Publishers Weekly reviews can complement the relatively brief referenced reception section we already have. Daranios (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help if those editors commenting in this discussion offered their opinion on what should happen to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - In order to help build a consensus, I am going to go ahead and recommend a Keep for this current discussion, with no prejudice against a subsequent discussion for any potential Mergers. While the sources are still pretty scarce, there is enough that outright Deletion is out of the question, and simply redirecting without some kind of Merge would not really be appropriate. The series might still warrant being merged to a broader topic about CrossGen or the Silverse, as discussed, but that possibility can be decided outside of the current AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions[edit]

no articles proposed for deletion at this time