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.

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.

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

Related deletion sorting

Fictional elements[edit]

Mythology of The Librarian[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT; WP:OR. Characters aleady included in their own article. --wooden superman 12:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Television, and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a pretty clear cut "Wikipedia is not FANDOM" issue. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first half of the article is just a bunch of links all leading to the actual character list for the franchise at List of The Librarian characters, and the second half is just unsourced plot material. I'm not finding much in the way of coverage in reliable sources that actually discuss the mythology or lore of the franchise, so the topic fails the WP:GNG as well. Rorshacma (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as appropriate to The Librarian (franchise), the WP:SS parent, as an ATD. I see no rationale articulated in either the nomination or prior !votes that would prohibit or deprecate such an ATD. Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What exactly from this article would be appropriate to upmerge here? The characters are already covered both on the main article as a chart, and in more detail in the separate List of The Librarian characters. Likewise, the main article already has a small section on the "Mythology of the Librarian" that gives a brief overview of the topic. And on top of that, there are essentially no source, even primary ones, being cited here to support any of the information being presented. The rationale for prohibiting that as an ATD is simply because there is nothing that would be appropriate to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slowpoke Rodriguez[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with the article's main source being primarily about Speedy Gonzales. List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters is partially incomplete and putting the info there would help to fill out that article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see that a merge was tried (and the talk page discussion on this is ancient), and certainly wouldn't revert one myself if I saw it. Does this really need to be at AfD? Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I consider any character article too controversial to just boldly merge, so to preempt that I don't see what's wrong about AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrigan Aensland[edit]

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

Genuinely so surprised to find that this article literally has nothing in the way of Reception. I took on the task of cleaning out the very outdated and over bloated Reception, and when I was done trimming out trivial mentions and unreliable sources, I found practically nothing left over. I performed an extensive BEFORE in the hopes of finding something to salvage this article, but there is genuinely nothing out there bar trivial mentions from stuff like CBR. In the article's current state I'm really not seeing enough to meet the GNG, and I'd suggest a merge or redirect to the Darkstalkers character list as an AtD. I'm genuinely so surprised there's nothing here, so if anyone can find anything I missed to improve this article, please feel free to share them, but right now I just don't think there's enough for an article here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A reception section is not necessary for a fictional element to meet GNG. Can you comment on the plethora of other sourcing still present in the article? Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this. I've mentioned this to the nominator many times before but they never seem to hear me.. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate not being accused of ignoring advice, here, and I've been wary of that primarily after the Koopa Troopa debate. Akin to that article and other articles I've seen in similar situations, those articles had a demonstrated impact beyond or within their series (Koopa Troopa influencing the designs of many characters in the series, for example.) Morrigan has some decent conception information, yes, but there's nothing in her conception information really demonstrating an inherent importance to her series or beyond it, especially in conjunction with the real lack of overall Reception, hence why I nominated it. Pinging @Jclemens for this reasoning so they're notified of this reply, given that both of you had the same query. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the accusations, stop writing nominations that hinge so heavily on the lack of a reception section. Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reception is a major crux in showing the subject's notability. While conception and design info can greatly help with that, oftentimes it isn't enough. (For instance, I once worked on a draft for Celebi (Pokemon), and that article had fantastic conception information but nothing showing that Celebi actually made an impact on anything.) Reception needs to work in conjunction with design information to prove a subject's notability, and I have seen cases where this is the case (For instance, I recently got Mew (Pokémon) to Good Article, and that article's heavy amounts of developmental information in conjunction with its displayed cultural impact help demonstrate notability) but in the case of Morrigan, there's scraps of information in her Reception with a conception section that doesn't display that Morrigan impacted her series with her design (akin to Koopa Troopa) nor has there been extensive detail on the subject's development been published to a point where the development in and of itself is notable. I'm not saying the conception info here isn't bad, but what I am saying is that I'm not seeing enough for a separate article to be worthwhile when a more than valid AtD happens to exist. I will admit that past cases such as Shulk and Koopa Troopa turned out to be incorrect in terms of their consensus, but I have noted these past consensuses and adapted it into my overall philosophy with articles. If Morrigan had even a few sources more I'd believe her to be meeting the notability guideline, but in this case she just frankly isn't. I have concerns with your accusation not because I'm ignoring your advice, but because of the fact that I worry that you think I am. Just because I have had past AfDs with "Keep" consensuses should not immediately devalue this one solely on the grounds of the one who nominated it, especially since I have laid out my rationale in very extensive detail in response to both you and Jclemens's queries. Additionally, I would also appreciate that we keep to the discussion of the subject in question, as I feel continuing down this chain of response will only lead to us getting off topic, but I thought I'd at least make my stance clear for clarity's sake so this does not become an issue both for this discussion and for future discussions. If you have further concerns about this, I'd appreciate if we continue it on my user talk page, since an AfD is not the proper place for a discussion about editing practices that do not pertain to this discussion in question. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reception section is one, but not the only, way to demonstrate notability. Many, but not all, RS coverage could be shoehorned into a reception section. Hence me asking the clarifying question: is there no RS coverage that you believe to be suitable for a reception section, or no RS coverage at all? You wrote a nomination that didn't answer that question, and I'd still like to hear your thoughts on that, because at first blush there appears to be a lot of references in the article, most of which are not in the reception section. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused about what you're asking. Are you asking about if there are sources for Reception used in the plot summary? From what I can tell, most of them are just verifying plot information or something similar, and any conception info isn't valid for Reception in this case. I can take another look when I'm home if you want but when I looked I didn't really notice much in the way of anything helpful in there. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Darkstalkers series (and its media spin-offs) were at the height of their popularity from 1994 to c. 1998. I an not certain that there are recent sources on for a series that has not seen new entries for about 25 years. Dimadick (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely second this, but I admittedly was unable to find much in the way of coverage in a peruse of Archive.org, and any other form of accessing sourcing or magazine coverage from that time period is inaccessible to me. There may be coverage, but the existence of it cannot be ascertained unless other editors bring them to light. If significant coverage in those kinds of source is found, I'd definitely be willing to reconsider my stance, but I unfortunately cannot confirm the existence of these potential sources at this time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Darkstalkers characters. Could not really find any SIGCOV besides this, but there is a perfectly fine WP:ATD. However, deleting nearly the entire reception before nominating is considered something of a "cover-up" and not encouraged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I wasn't really intending anything of the sort, as I was intending to just clean up the article before I realized the lack of any actual coverage in there. I will assure you that the stuff I removed wasn't really doing much for the article, in any case, and if any editor wishes to take a look at the sources in the old state of the article, they can be found here. For the most part, it was primarily trivial mentions and sources of questionable authenticity (Practically of all of which were not really helpful either way). Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Unless sourcing is found, per Zx. I went through the sources as shown in the article's history, and and extensively through WP:BEFORE. I *rewrote* the entire dev section on this article even. But I don't think Pokelego's reasoning is wrong here: when you look at what's actually being said here, and the context, it's not there or at least hasn't been found. Even the Troopa article had some footing on how it changed with the Mario series and affected it, and that'd been lost. Here anything major can be summed up for the list or series article I feel.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM I feel it's important to note too that this is one of Niemti/Snake's articles, an editor known for refbombing, overblowing sources, or outright fabricating information. The dev section alone before I rewrote it was a bit of a wreck in that regard, so reference count should not be considered as proof.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content of this source [1] to list since the character didn't passed WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kasumi (Dead or Alive)[edit]

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

This is not an AfD I wanted to do.

Niemti's articles are hard to worth through, because of how often you're not sure if what you're reading is actually in the source, or if the source is even cited correctly, or how much it's overblown. And sweet baby Jesus was that the case here. We had references to a book without an ISBN. Two references that had one citing the other as its source and treated as separate, and in the end only mentioned the character briefly. A Brazilian Xbox Magazine cited where the ref stated...it was a Spanish Dreamcast Magazine. A *magazine cover* cited ("text in all caps").

When I dug through the references, only ones I could find saying something really tangible were Joystick Division, Brian Ashcraft's Kotaku article, and Hardcore Gaming 101, and even then it's about a sentence each. The Daily Mirror source I couldn't confirm, but even that's a bit more about the silliness of DoA than her as a character.

I have done a really extensive WP:BEFORE on this, and can sadly say almost all the reception DoA characters get is treating them as a whole, many of which focusing on the sex appeal of the roster. (there was an article cited in here at one point which was "Top things you'll see in DoA" and each entry were each character's left and right breast). Scholar was a mess and not helped by how common Kasumi is as a name. Japanese sources actually turned up one ref for Ayane, who overall by comparison seemed to have more commentary than this when the dust settled. Even Internet Archive offered little help.

Like I said I didn't want to do this, but there's no meat on this bone. Kasumi is known, but nothing's said about Kasumi as a character, or even any look at her design that amounts to anything. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2024 (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) 19:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of the Dead or Alive series. The article is a huge mess and needs a full rewrite even if she was notable. Should be merged for now per TNT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I'm admittedly not seeing much in the way of significant coverage here. Ping me if additional sources are found, but for now I don't believe this is meeting notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'd trust that KFM did an extensive WP:BEFORE check. Maybe someone can find notable commentary someday and split it out again, but today is not that day. I also want to add to anyone unfamiliar with the situation, this article was written by a banned editor who had a lot of bad habits with sources they used and content they wrote about. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 05:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No evidence that this character is notable. The reception is mostly just a listicles on how sexy she is, garbage. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of suicides in fiction[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Indiscriminate list full of unsourced original research. The few sources don't concern the subject matter at large, but specific pieces of fiction listed. Zanahary (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A completely indiscriminate, poorly sourced, example farm. Actual prose information on the topic of depictions of suicide in fiction could very likely be developed, either under the "Social and Culture" section of the main Suicide article or even potentially as its own article. But this list would not be useful at all in that endeavor since, as pointed out in the nomination, it does not actually include any sources on that topic, just a handful of specific examples, mainly just sourced to the pieces of fiction they are from. Rorshacma (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. The topic is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, besides being badly sourced. The subject of this article cannot practically built or maintained in a way that meets our policies. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a gigantic collection of indiscriminate information that could easily include a significant portion of every single fictional work ever created. Furthermore, the vast majority of it is completely uncited. It is simply impossible to maintain this type of list. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Odd and seemingly random, it's totally unencyclopedic and poorly sourced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Big the Cat. ✗plicit 13:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big the Cat[edit]

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

Notability. I redirected this article on (to quote article) a minor character in Sonic to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters; edit was reverted. Seeking a broader consensus. I note from the edit histort that there has already been some discussion of the topic, concluding that a redirect is appropriate.TheLongTone (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This AfD does not have a policy-based reason for merging; being a minor character in Sonic is not relevant to whether he is notable. It also misquotes the article; it does not say that this is a minor character, it says that Big plays a minor role in a single Sonic anime series. In his debut role, he's one of six main characters of the game, and he later appears as one of the four trios of characters in Sonic Heroes. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the consensus in this past discussion. And a second time here. I asked the article creator what's changed, and it's been days and they haven't responded. It's unclear to me what sources represent significant coverage of the character itself. Even if notability is met, it should be sent back to the draft and copy edited. These prose is extremely rough. No idea why a draft like this was rushed out. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There is a bit of significant coverage from Escapist, but overall there doesn't seem to be enough for a standalone page on the character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect again. Target should be List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Big the Cat. The character is too minor for a full article even given that he has some fans. There are a lot of references but all they do is verify that this is a minor character that some people like. This article is also poorly written. I see some people trying to fix that but I think that the notability problem would doom it even if they fixed everything that is fixable and so I recommend that they don't waste too much time on it. Instead, if there is anything worth saving, maybe merge a few sentences (not more) into the redirect target. Also, Froggy (Sonic the Hedgehog character) should be redirected to the same target to avoid a double redirect. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It is quite unfortunate that I thought the 2 Eurogamer sources would help, but it really doesn't; just like the Kotaku source. The Escapist alone wouldn't help, but the worst part is this [2]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update to that last bit of your comment. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I was the one that challenged this being redirected boldly since I had a feeling this character could be notable and I felt as if this users past creations constantly being redirected for not being notable was a little harsh. But now that I see the comment that was linked above, and looking at the article for myself, not only is it not notable, but the writing is horrendous. Not to come off as harsh, but comment above and the user rushing the draft instead of waiting for feedback despite their past failures strikes me as the editor not being competent. λ NegativeMP1 14:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @Cukie Gherkin: or merge with List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Big the Cat - The sourcing is weak, with most of it being trivial or just gameplay feature announcements (i.e. "Big the Cat will be in this game"). Merging is not needed, since their section in the character list already includes the information here, just in a much more succinct, better written format, including his role in the games, appearances, and even the negative reception he received from fans. Rorshacma (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Pidge (Voltron)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG no sigcov outside of listicles and primary sources. There is one seemingly good source from the Mary Sue but I don't think that's enough. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think this article should be merged to List of Voltron characters as a compromise. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not do all the characters at once? Princess Allura, Hunk, Keith, Lance, Prince Lotor, Sven / Shiro, and Emperor Zarkon. I created the Voltron fandom years ago, and when the latest Voltron series was made, they worked directly with me on putting information there about it. If people want to learn about the characters, they can just go to https://voltron.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Characters and find more detail. Dream Focus 15:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyright violation. This information was on the official Voltron wiki [3] back in 2011, which is older than this article, and unlike this article it has references to which episodes information was in. Dream Focus 15:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[4] The user that copied it mentioned https://voltron.fandom.com/wiki/Pidge_(Legendary_Defender) in a reference for where the information came from. Dream Focus 22:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:COPYVIO 104.7.152.180 (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Voltron Fandom Wiki Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted according to a notice at the bottom of the Pidge page, so I'm not sure if the copyright violation necessarily applies as a deletion reason in this specific case. I've added attribution to the edit history. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a Merge, assuming that content doesn't violate our copyright guidelines?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Voltron characters, this fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takeo Saeki[edit]

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

Not significant enough for standalone article. Possible merge/redirect to Ju-on but no sourced info to merge. Boleyn (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as WP:ATD. The sourcing here is severely lacking. For this one article, I am more willing to grant that sources could exist, given its roots in Asia. A merge would allow us to WP:PRESERVE some amount of history and content, in case sources are found at a later time. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Direct to Ju-On. Article just reiterates plot lines of the films in the series, and any reader can play catch-up with that on the Ju-On article. There's nothing to really merge as nothing is cited or stands out enough from the Ju On series on its own. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ju-On - As Andrzejbanas said, the only content in this article is just truncated reiterations of the plots of each of the films, all of which have their own articles that include a plot summary. With no content outside of the films' plots and no sources whatsoever, Redirecting to the franchise's main article would be the best solution here. Rorshacma (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris King and Vicki Grant[edit]

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

This article doesn't have reception or signification coverage about the character, and the hero forms section was written awfully or its fully redundant; thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because they were separated from the Dial H for Hero page by @Jhenderson777: to keep the page from getting too long like the Black Canary page or merge Chris King and his superhero forms to List of Marvel Comics characters: K and Vicki Grant and her superheroine forms to List of Marvel Comics characters: G in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE if the latter happens. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fantastic Beasts characters[edit]

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

There are two big issues: Firstly, there's no citations outside of the one character that already has his own page, Newt Scamander. Secondly, this is for a three-film series - so not really a huge body of work - and, outside of the main four or five characters, there's one or two sentences for each person. Worse, the articles on the films have cast lists with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters, so it's redundant as well (The main characters' longer bits just being the plot summaries of the films). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 23:27, 23 May 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 Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:CSC #2, no argument for deletion made that cannot be remedied by editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it rises to the level of notability where it can ever be sourced. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 04:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These articles a little weird if we are trying to go by consistency. List of Harry Potter characters exists, but that is for characters who appeared in any of the books, which a lot of these do not and are not mentioned in that article. There is also List of Fantastic Beasts cast members which compliments List of Harry Potter cast members (a featured list.) Maybe it might be beneficial to merge the two Fantastic Beasts articles since the cast members one is well sourced, while this one is not. Aspects (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not objecting to Fantastic Beasts having multiple articles, but the number of secondary articles on it seems vastly out of line with the material. Fantastic Beasts (film series) and the three film articles are sensible enough, Newt Scamander seems to have enough independant coverage - and crossover content between various things - that it's justified, but when you get to a list of the characters, and a cast list as a table without any context, it feels both redundant and weird. It feels like the cast list should be at the end of the article on the series, and the character list... well... it's really hard to see why that exists at all if this article the most we can come up with, and I don't think anything in it isn't in the cast sections of the articles for each film; indeed, I think those may be doing a slightly better job.

Harry Potter isn't a good guide to what should exist here, as that was a much, much bigger phenomenon than its spinoff, and, as a book series, had both a lot more characters than could plausibly fit in a plot summary and a lot more development and recurrence of minor characters (and Rowling talked a lot more about the development of those characters in interviews). Films just don't have the depth of books, and, if there's material about secondary characters that got left out of the films, as far as I'm aware, it's not reported on.

And, of course, Harry Potter in particular had a lot more secondary sources that went into detail about every character; Fantastic Beasts doesn't have anything like that depth of coverage. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel there has to be a merge target as an WP:ATD for this. The one suggested above seems less intuitive than if the main article had a characters section. Perhaps each individual film should have a characters section? Conyo14 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They already do, is the thing, with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters. And it covers pretty much all the information on this page except for the main cast, who are redundant to the plot summary. If I've missed that one doesn't appear, by all means copy it over. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 13:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Fantastic Beasts cast members. I think there is enough to write about these characters, both as a group and individually, based on pop culture sources like [5], [6], and scholarly sources like here and many others. While it is indeed a problem that there are almost no references, this can easily be addressed through normal editing by using such secondary non-independent book-length sources like Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: Character Guide or Harry Potter: Characters of the Wizarding World. The latter also sets a precedent for a possible merge with List of Harry Potter characters, if a collective treatment is somehow seen as beneficial. (Which would pose the naming problem, where surly there can be a compromise if needed.) No strong opinion on that particular question. List of Fantastic Beasts cast members to me seems to have less content, so this could be merged here, discussion on the name notwithstanding. Or that list could be merged to Fantastic Beasts, as suggested this discussion, leaving the our list here with solvable problems to solve. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further pop culture sources, if somewhat focussed on a specific film of the series would be [7], [8], and with a fun bit of analysis, [9]. So again, that there is not enough sourcing to constitute an article does not at all seem to be the case. Daranios (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it feels redundant to the film articles, and there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article, but, well, sure. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article: On the one hand I think that's a valid concern, seeing that some articles stay tagged and unimproved for long periods of time. But on the other hand I think that is the basic premise of Wikipedia, and the project is immensly successful! So I prefer to err on the side of hope in accordance with WP:There is no deadline and especially WP:Work in progress. Daranios (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, but I think when the article's a spinoff that has redundant information to other articles at present, it's perhaps more of a question. As it stands, it's just the character lists already in the three films, but as an unreferenced, alphabetised list. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Please do not turn List of Fantastic Beasts cast members into a Redirect as that article is being discussed as a possible Merge target article which can't occur if the page is a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor characters[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Adding together many non-notable topics still gives you a non-notable topic. Some character articles like Sarah Jane Smith are notable but does not support having a list about every character in the series, which do not have significant coverage as required by WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep character lists' topic is the fictional element (The Sarah Jane Adventures), and are roundly considered to meet CSC #2. That is, no policy-based reason for deletion has been articulated. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^{[by whom?]} 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impossible Worlds, Impossible Things: Cultural Perspectives on Doctor Who, Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures has commentary on the characters in the series, starting from Sarah Jane, but also about the other characters as a group. Daranios (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. The problem here is less notability, but more size. The list can likely have the bulk of its content merged into the cast list already in the article given the bulk of characters here are at least decently recurring. This feels like it was dropped partway through, since the only characters beyond the significant recurring characters are minor characters from the first episode exclusively. If this does survive, it needs a major TNT/overhaul, but personally I don't see a reason for this to exist just based off of size reasons. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename, or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. I am not convinced the split into cast and minor characters is beneficial. So I could imagine keeping and renaming this into List of The Sarah Jane Adventures characters, and include brief descriptions and links to the cast characters, most of whom have their own articles. Seems helpful to me for navigation. With regard to notability, as mentioned above, I question if it makes any sense to try to divorce conventional fiction works from the characters. What would they be without the characters? Of course there still needs to be enough material in secondary sources to write anything. Still, if one wanted to ask for secondary sources specifically discussing the characters of The Sarah Jane Adventures, Dancing with the Doctor discusses them at various places, as does the book mentioned above and others. So even if one wanted to ask for notability of characters as opposed to the series as such, that would still be fullfilled. All that said, I don't have an overview how much the secondary sources in total have to say on characters other than the main cast (and how incomplete the current list is with regards to what Pokelego999 mentioned), so I cannot say if a stand-alone article or a merge would be best in the long run, based on WP:PAGEDECIDE rather than notability. Daranios (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures per WP:ATD. I only find WP:SIGCOV for characters who already have articles. The minor characters don't have much coverage, but are summed up nicely at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Merge? No support so far for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If asked to decide I would prefer keeping to merging. Hopefully there will be more input. Daranios (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best belong to Fandom, don't anybody think? (Nothing wrong with it though, I frequent visit that site) Serves to nobody but to the most ardent fans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHOCARES is not a valid argument. (and there is an awful lot wrong with fandom) --TheImaCow (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheImaCow: Fixed unclosed small HTML tag that caused display problems on pages transcluding this AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to point out that a list of this is useful for Fandom. Still, whats makes a list of minor characters worthy of a standalone list when most lists of characters are about characters with significant roles, hence my point. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juhani (Star Wars)[edit]

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

Source analysis from reception: Of all sources that have been used, Gizmodo [10] is the only sigcov here. [11] Passing mention. [12] A trivia coverage from a listicle. [13] trivia coverage. [14] just a passing mention of Juhani being a lesbian character and can have lesbian relationship with trivia coverage [15] passing mention [16] listicle [17] just talked about her being created as a lesbian and the romance, a bit useful but this and Gizmodo isn't enough to pass the notability threshold. The rest of the sources that I didn't mention aren't reliable/situational and cannot help WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:49, 21 May 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 Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the character list. The reception consists of trivial mentions with no indication of standalone notability at all. Simply being a milestone for something is not enough to merit a page, unfortunately. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The character's milestone status does seem to have gotten her some attention from outside the normal fan-coverage sources, however. Whether it's sufficiently significant coverage, I'm a terrible judge. But see: Dym, Brianna (2019). "The burden of queer love". Press Start. 5 (1): 19–35. (pp. 24-26 in particular) and Shaw, Adrienne; Friesem, Elizaveta (2016). "Where is the queerness in games?: Types of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer content in digital games". International Journal of Communication. 10: 3877–3889. (admittedly, only one paragraph on p. 3883 but includes context and analysis outside the first game). Snippet view (and Google Scholar) suggest there might be some discussion of the character in chapter 8 of this Routledge-published book, but I don't have immediate access and my library doesn't have a copy handy. Lubal (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There are only passing mentions of this in reliable sources. It isn't enough to pass the notability threshold. Jontesta (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if suggesting a Merge or Redirect, you must supply a target article at the same time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The character's apparent status as the first LGBT SW character is certainly notable, and sources used in the article like The Advocate [18], Out.com [19], TheWrap [20] and Polygon [21] are reliable.— TAnthony^Talk 16:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series. While I do understand there's *reaction* to her status as a LGBT character, that alone doesn't particularly feel as notable when there's not a lot of discussion about it to warrant observing her as a character. I feel that's a significant factor her we need to consider.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. And, as I said, specify a target article, by linking to the desired page, do not say things like "merge to the character list". Name the specific article. The closer probably doesn't know Star Wars and you don't want them guessing where content should be merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Lane (DC Extended Universe)[edit]

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

I try again. Lois Lane is indeed an encyclopedic character but its counterpart from the DC Extended Universe seems to be irrelevant in a real world perspective. First thing first, this article does not meet the requirements of WP:NFILMCHAR: the character has appeared in three films, but not in a lead or titular capacity. Also, this iteration of Lois Lane does not have an extensive coverage. Redjedi23 (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We meet again, old friend.

As discussed last time, I wouldn't do a straight up delete, but would merge to either Lois Lane in other media or Characters of the DC Extended Universe if it's decided this page isn't worth being a stand-alone article. WuTang94 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Lois Lane in film and merge in the film content from Lois Lane in other media (as we do with our separate articles for, e.g., Spider-Man in film and Spider-Man in other media). There is sufficient DCEU-specific content on casting and character development within the franchise that this content should not be erased from the encyclopedia altogether. BD2412 T 19:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is a split article from the Lois Lane in other media page and is similar to other split articles like Lois Lane (Superman & Lois) and Lois Lane (Smallville). The character has notability and media coverage more than other DC Extended Universe characters. Most people already know who she is from other films and television she appeared in. Rootone (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm imo Lois Lane (Superman & Lois) is not encyclopedic too. These information could be easily merged into another page (Lois Lane in film? Lois Lane in other media? Characters of the DC Extended Universe/of Superman & Lois?). She doesn't have an extensive coverage like, I don't know, Superman. Lois Lane (Smallville) is different anyway. Redjedi23 (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: extensive, in-depth coverage in mainstream RS seems to meet both WP:NFILMCHAR and GNG. Discussion about a better title can continue outside AfD. Owen× ☎ 10:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NFILMCHAR the character should have a lead or titular role in the three films. Being listed in the cast doesn't made her a character with a lead role. For instance, Pepper Potts (Marvel Cinematic Universe) has appeared in more films but she doesn't have a page. Redjedi23 (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MCU Pepper doesn't have a page because we simply haven't initiated the debate to split off from the main page for Pepper Potts, but I do see some strong rationale to do so. WuTang94 (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, DCEU Lois was technically the female lead in two films, namely Man of Steel (opposite Superman) and Batman v Superman (opposite Superman and Batman), and the rules simply say that at least one of the three, not all three, have to meet that criterion. WuTang94 (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the very least needs a good WP:TNT because the Fandom/Screen Rant-like writing and heading styles are non-standard and discouraged, and this could easily be two-three reduced paragraphs in the main Lois Lane article (and the Superman and Lois article has the same style issues; stop pushing this onto en.wiki, we don't have ads which require this awful style of formatting). Nate • (chatter) 20:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undo split or re-merge, per MrSchimpf. Deletion would be acceptable, but we should strive for WP:CONSENSUS-building and WP:ATD. This can easily be reduced to two or three paragraphs in the main character article, and even then, the important details are already covered at Lois Lane and Lois Lane in other media. There aren't enough sources to support a third article about essentially the same subject, and two articles are already questionable. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions[edit]

no articles proposed for deletion at this time