Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

Related deletion sorting

Fictional elements

Ryo Sakazaki

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

Getting this out of the way: the article is huge, but FANDOM pages are also huge, that doesn't have anything to do with a character's notability. In this case, Ryo does not appear notable, and the article only reinforces how Dan Hibiki, the character who is a parody of him, is probably notable while Ryo is not. What is not primary-sourced development information or plot summary is sourced entirely to trivial mentions or listicles that mention him alongside all other characters, only indicating KOF characters are notable as a group. I appreciate the effort to improve the article but Boneless Pizza was likely correct to redirect it in 2023. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made sure it in reception to make sure it had a big impact not only in game journalists discussing him on his own in different countries. Also real people. There are cases of people reacting to his marketing, developers inspired by his story or involving him or simply how important was him being a guest character in Fatal Fury Special also inspired the creation of the fighting game franchise KOF.Tintor2 (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case it helps, I added several new articles focused around him just now.Tintor2 (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rias Gremory

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

Character appears to fail standalone notability, and much of the article seems to fall under WP:FANCRUFT. The vast majority of the article is unsourced aside from primary references to episodes of the anime, and almost all the secondary references are only in the "reception" section. Almost none of these references meet WP:SIGCOV: 1 only briefly covers Highschool DxD, and is mostly about Jamie Marchi, 2 is primary, 3-23 are WP:USERG, and 24-29 are just describing merchandise, and most of them are USERG. 30 is the only reference that may be a reliable secondary source, but the article does not give significant coverage to Rias, and her cosplay is not ranked particularly high. Almost nothing about Rias appears on Google Scholar, nothing at all on JSTOR, and Google News only contains trivial mentions of Highschool DxD in general, and almost none of them are specific to Rias. The article overall reads like something from a Highschool DxD fan wiki, and Rias seems to lack any standalone notability. This article should be merged into List of High School DxD characters in a greatly abridged form. Masskito (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Anime and manga. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Extremely selectively, per nom. Rias is not independently notable and the article is WP:REFBOMBed with trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Reagan

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

WP:FANCRUFT article with almost exclusively primary sources. No evidence of notability outside of the confines of the show and no information that can't be found at List of Blue Bloods characters. Mbdfar (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Reagan may also be of questionable notability. Mbdfar (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are the lead characters in a highly popular and well-discussed series. A Google News search returns hundreds of results, including articles primarily about the character, e.g., the just-published "Why Blue Bloods Fans Can't Stand Danny Reagan", Kieran Fisher, Looper (September 9, 2024); "It's Time for 'Blue Bloods' to Give Danny a New Romance", Jenna Kaylor, Collider (April 20, 2024). In print media, see, e.g., Les Linz, "Lessons from Blue Bloods that we can learn", The Seymour Tribune (July 31, 2021), p. A4, primarily about the Danny Reagan character. The ease with which sources can be found suggests that not a modicum of WP:BEFORE was done for this nomination. BD2412 T 03:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No questioning the notability of the series. Trivial mentions and characterizations in low-quality pop culture websites as your Google News search supplies does not indicate stand-alone notability outside of the context of the show. The character, despite being a lead, does not inherit notability from the show. I fail to see the encyclopedic value of the Looper article of recycled Reddit comments or the simple plot synopses found in the Collider article. I'm not even sure how to address the The Seymour Tribune piece. Mbdfar (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you're not sure how to address an article that ran in a print newspaper, then perhaps you should consider dropping it. Here's another source from near the very beginning of the series: "From New Kid to tough cop", David Hiltbrand, The Hackensack Record (November 11, 2011), p. G35. By the way, Newspapers.com returns over 800 hits for "Danny Reagan" "Blue Bloods", so I can do this all day. BD2412 T 03:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I only say that because it is a fluff article relating the character to biblical proverbs which does not seem encyclopedic, though it at least is relating the character to something outside of the show. That Hackensack article is about the actor, and I do not question the notability of Donnie Wahlberg. This is a very unimpressive WP:THREE. Mbdfar (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Hackensack article is about the actor being the portrayer of the character, even as early as 2011. There are also over a dozen Google Scholar returns for "Danny Reagan" "Blue Bloods", which indicate that there is also some degree of scholarly examination of the character, beyond the pop culture coverage. BD2412 T 03:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, a popular actor playing in a popular show will get coverage. Did you click on any of those Scholar links? I see undergraduate papers, theses, and trivial mentions. There were a couple I could not access, perhaps you can take some time to find out if there is anything usable. Mbdfar (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Blue_Bloods_characters#Danny Reagan. Notability may or may not be an issue, but WP:NOT#PLOT is. No need for a WP:SPINOUT article at this point; the LoC is sufficent until an editor comes around to cover this encyclopedically. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sgeureka. Once this is condensed down to reliable secondary sources, there isn't much left to WP:PRESERVE. A very selective merge is also a valid WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. from the history, was created by removing content from the list, follows that if creation is undone, removal of that content from the list must be undone. New sourced material should be merged as well. Same should go for Jamie Reagan, can be done bold/speedy. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional rodents in animation

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

A large majority of the list is completely unreferenced, a vast majority of the "notes" are unencyclopedic. May also fail Wikipedia:Listcruft. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Animal. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A redirect back to List of fictional rodents would be fine, per WP:ATD and WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of fictional rodents#Animation - The only reason this got so long that a split was necessary to begin with is because no attempt was being made to stick to any kind of criteria to limit it only to notable examples, on either this or the parent list. Remove the copious amounts of non-notable and dubious examples and condense the multiple entries that come from the same topic (i.e., have one entry for groups like The Chipmunks rather than listing them individually as separate entries), and it would fit neatly into the main list without the need for a split. This spinout list is very poorly sourced, so I'm not going to formally advocate for a Merge, but Redirecting will preserve the history here. Rorshacma (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly fancruft and listcruft. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless and fancrufty split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nien Nunb

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor series character whose article is entirely fancruft, with a WP:BEFORE turning up no notable independent coverage. The article was recreated after having been previously voted as delete in its first AfD and it's remained the same old, same old since then. A redirect to List of Star Wars characters#Nien Nunb is suggested, and possibly a salting of the article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 19:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Star Wars characters#Nien Nunb as an alternative to AFD. Not seeing much.Timur9008 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find/observe significant coverage of the topic with reliable, reliable and independent sources that mention the character, my position is to maintain a serious illogical redirection, the character is very relevant and maintains a verified and evidenced context. --Alon9393 (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote from blocked editor. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect per WP:ATD. There isn't independent coverage and there wasn't really much evidence to split it in the first place. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and other rationales. Not enough independent coverage here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pugad Baboy villains

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

WP:OR without independent sources or any justification of the notability of the group. Fails other policies about what Wikipedia is not, such as "Wikipedia is not a directory". Jontesta (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. (This material could be used on a Pugad Baboy Wiki, however.) TH1980 (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bulletman enemies

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

WP:OR without independent sources or any justification of the notability of the group. Fails other policies about what Wikipedia is not, such as "Wikipedia is not a directory". Jontesta (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no reliable sources that discuss the overall topic of Bulletman and/or Bulletgirl's enemies as a group or set, making this a failure of the WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. On top of that, nearly all of these entries are one-shot characters that appeared in single issues. I was going to suggest a very selective merge to Bulletman and Bulletgirl#Rogues_gallery (i.e., mentioning the two or three entries here that were actually reoccurring), but as this list is completely unsourced, a merger would not really be appropriate. No prejudice against actually filling out that section of the main article with reliably sourced information on their handful of actually reoccurring rogues, though. Rorshacma (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the rogues gallery section at Bulletman and Bulletgirl. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage from reliable sources. Azuredivay (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage and reliable sources are present, does not look suitable for Wikipedia. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mesklin

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

Non-notable article about a location composed of unreliable or primary sources. For WP:Before, a search showed only trivial mentions and in-universe plot summaries, without significant coverage or reception. Jontesta (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mission of Gravity. Some part of the text can be salvaged, and the novel is the main "user" of Mesklin. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mesklin gets a fair amount of discussion in literature about science fiction (mostly in the context of Mission of Gravity). It is generally considered a (or even the) prototypical example of hard science fiction worldbuilding. Some examples:
- The Dictionary of Science Fiction Places p. 199
- The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction p. 87
- The Science in Science Fiction p. 56
- How Space Physics Really Works: Lessons from Well-Constructed Science Fiction p. 31
- A Companion to Science Fiction p. 195

There are also things like "Applying Science to Fiction: A Look at the Fictional Planet Mesklin" (which I am unfortunately not able to read the full text of), and much, much more is available by simply searching for "Mesklin" at the Internet Archive (I haven't read it in full, but the first hit leads to Donald M. Hassler's chapter "The Irony in Hal Clement's World Building" in Science Fiction Dialogues, which covers Mesklin for several pages). I don't think WP:Notability is seriously in question here, and there's certainly an argument to be made that the fictional planet gets more attention as the point of focus in the secondary literature than the story it first appeared in. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Clarityfiend to Mission of Gravity. WP:BEFORE shows that the reception of the novel its science are covered in the same scope. Both articles are under sourced and will improve through a merge, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Genesis

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable article about a location composed of unreliable or primary sources. For WP:Before, a search showed only trivial mentions and in-universe plot summaries, without significant coverage or reception. Jontesta (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to New Genesis (DC Comics) (as there is a song with that name) and then redirect to New Gods. No indication of notability. Not sure if the song is notable either, but it doesn't seem like a primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battleworld

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable article about a location composed of unreliable or primary sources. For WP:Before, a search showed only trivial mentions and in-universe plot summaries, without significant coverage or reception. Jontesta (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Secret Wars as the primary target for this fictional location, where adequate information is already covered. While arguments in the prior AfD from over a decade ago bringing up Battelworld's appearances in other related comics, I would argue that those have not received as much independent third-party coverage from reliable sources outside of its connections to the Secret Wars comics. Redirecting to the original Secret Wars comic instead of the 2015 one makes sense as the former also points to the latter comic with a dedicated section for it. I will also note that the Battleworld article has not improved much from the prior AfD and borders on pure WP:FANCRUFT, especially with its exhaustive list, as this is WP:NOTADIRECTORY. The other contents of Battleworld beyond Secret Wars can be adequately covered at those other comic articles, such as Beyond!, as brought up in the prior AfD. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As the first and third Battleworlds have known locations, would you prefer that they be listed in the respectful Secret Wars articles? --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, that would be the most optimal location for the relevant versions of this, although the main Battleworld stems from the original comic. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the planets section of Features of the Marvel Universe if no worthy sources can be found by the day of this AFD closure.--Rtkat3 (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue merging a lot of content to that list would be a bit much for it, and it would be morel logical to point directly to a comic where it is an important aspect rather than shoehorning it into a list entry, which can be limiting. That entry should likely summarize the different versions from the various comics and point to those for more details. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you say in the last article that the respectful Battleworld descriptions would be listed in their respectful storyline appearances? Of course we can add the good parts of the Battleworld descriptions to it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. However, the main topic would be the Secret Wars comic, not the Features list, from my understanding. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Secret Wars as primary target, per WP:ATD. It can be additionally noted at Features of the Marvel Universe. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impasse (comics)

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

An incredibly minor fictional character that, from what I can tell, only appeared in one, single issue of a comic. The one non-primary source being used in the article simply summarizes the plot of that single appearance. Searches turned up absolutely nothing else, not even brief mentions, on the character in reliable sources. Even fan wikis like the Marvel Database don't have an entry on the character. The character is as completely non-notable as a fictional character can possibly be, and is a complete failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Rorshacma (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect to List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters due to lack of notability. The new article has her listed but she is one of the few characters without a description, which this merge can solve
SJD Willoughby (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I touched upon this in another similar AFD earlier today, but this particular case is a even bigger example of why a Merge to that article is improper. A throwaway adversary that appeared in one issue of a comic is not a "supporting character" of Iron Fist and Luke Cage. Listing the character on that page as if they were is outright misleading. Rorshacma (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That specific problem could be solved by choosing a different suitable merge target, List of Marvel Comics characters: I, or by changing the title of List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters to simpler (and less ambiguous?) List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist characters. Either way would be fine with me. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of where it is, a completely inconsequential character that made one single-issue appearance is too non-notable to be merged or mentioned anywhere. The very act of covering the character on Wikipedia in any capacity would create more notability for the character than actually exists. Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a different objection from "listing him under supporting characters is misleading". The fact that the character has received its own entry in the specialized Encyclopedia of Super-Villains (although that one differs somewhat in nature to our encyclopedia here) in my view gives him enough notability, obviously not for a stand-alone article, but for a two-sentence summary in a list. And that view is not based on personal evaluation of the primary material. It's also one common way lists work. And I don't see a benefit in not having this condensed information. Daranios (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so non-notable we honestly don't even need a mention. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters. BOZ (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters. Does not seem notable in itself, but target can be improved by content based on a secondary source present here. Daranios (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One-off characters aren't supporting characters and (generally) don't deserve a mention. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't deserve a mention and editors wouldn't search for "Impasse (comics)" anyway. Jontesta (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About one person does per day. So not many, but also not noone. And WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Daranios (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I do not see it necessary for this to exist and so without encyclopedic context my decision is to eliminate. Alon9393 (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: I. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This doesn't have enough coverage to support even a mention. But I'd accept a redirect and a brief mention for the sake of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cadborosaurus

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

Canadian legendary creature / aquatic cryptid of dubious notability. Lots of primary sources used (newspapers from middle 20th century), and passing mentions in cryptid pseudoscience works. There is, however, a Scientific American article (blog?) tackling this https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/tetrapod-zoology/the-cadborosaurus-wars/ , in which a more serious scholar effectively says this is bad science. Still, it gives it a bit of notability. Can we find enough in other sources to warrant keeping this (WP:SIGCOV does require coverage in multiple, reliable sources, and so far I'd say we have just one?) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Animal, and Biology. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, this book on Columbia University Press has a chapter regarding the cryptid. Geschichte (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the sources already in the article and the one mentioned above, Cadborosaurus appears in the academic secondary (tertiary?) sources Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology, p. 80 (has its own entry) and Seeungeheuer - Mythen, Fabeln und Fakten, p. 73-77. Daranios (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized that the latter is a translation of Monsters of the Sea. Daranios (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:BEFORE. I'm persuaded this is discussed in enough sources. I wouldn't object to a merge if someone found a better way to organize this, maybe related to the folklore of the Kʼómoks or shíshálh Nation. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources presented above do show that this is a cryptid that actually has received coverage in reliable sources, beyond local and fringe sources. For example, the "Abominable Science!" book, despite the silly looking cover, appears to actually be a book discussing the real world origins of the belief in cryptids, not a WP:FRINGE text discussing them as being real, and seems to have quite a bit of coverage of Cadborosaurus. No prejudice against a future Merger discussion, as mention by Shooterwalker above, though I suspect that if the reliable sources are integrated into the article, that would probably not be necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro (comics)

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

Could not find any additional coverage that would suggest notability, and I don't think the encyclopedia appearances currently included would be enough on their own. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters. BOZ (talk) 07:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another incredibly minor character that has only made a handful of appearances. Searches are not turning up any coverage of the character in reliable sources (and barely anything in the usual non-reliable fan sites at that), leading me to believe that the one source listed in the article to verify his creation date is the closest thing to coverage the character ever got. Not every minor character that has ever appeared in a comic needs to be stuffed into a character list (and the proposed merge target here is one that I'm not even convinced would pass the WP:GNG itself), and this is an example of one that has so little notability both in real life and within the MU itself, that a merge would not be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The character is already on the list, and there is at least some sourced info here which isn't already there (the list currently only has the character's name linked back to this article). The notability of that list can be discussed in a different AfD if you're really concerned about it, but for now, so long as it exists and is a valid merge target, I don't see why we shouldn't. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my concern is that given how very few appearances he has actually made in the comics, referring to him as a "supporting character" of Luke Cage and Iron Fist is a rather huge stretch. The very act of having him on that list is ascribing more notability to the character than any sources I can find can actually attest to. Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters. Does not seem notable in itself, but target can be improved by content based on a secondary source present here. Daranios (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: M with a brief mentioning at List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blair Witch characters

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST. All sources are primary and based on the books. Couldn't find anything on a search that discussed the characters as a group. Conyo14 (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a perfectly standard WP: SPLITLIST of characters. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even a WP:SPLITLIST article is required to meet WP:NLIST. Conyo14 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to Blair_Witch#Main_cast_and_characters, 3-5 actors/characters appeared in more than one film, which to me is not significant enough for a spin-out character list. Not opposed to a due-weight section in the franchise article though. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While a character list being split out from a franchise can be a valid split, it would appear that this one is mostly comprised of a bunch of minor and/or background characters, many of which were only mentioned or appeared in the book series. The article on the book series, The Blair Witch Files, already has a section on the main characters, and as sgeureka said, the number of actually non-minor/background characters that actually made appearances or had relevance in more than one of the films is so small that a separate character list is really not necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete splitting an unsourced section into an article isn't immunity from Wikipedia policies. The article fails WP:NLIST. Jontesta (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am generally not opposed to a page devoted to a list of characters visible in a franchise, but as Rorshacma stated, this is a list primarily made up of minor and background characters. To really justify a page it would need to be something more like the lists of characters for the MCU or Sailor Moon. I'm aware those are better maintained and sourced than others, but you get the point. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. WP:AVOIDSPLIT is relevant here and there isn't enough well-sourced information to support an article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Rider (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

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

Unnecessary incomplete disambiguation page (WP:INCDAB) of non-articles when IMO Ghost Rider (disambiguation) already takes care of all three entries. No incoming links. Redirecting it to the dab page as the (to me) obvious fix got reverted, so more discussion may be needed.

Entry #1: a redirect to a character list bullet point for a fictional character that had a non-speaking cameo appearance in the TV series
Entry #2: a redirect to a character list section for a one-season recurring character; it's debatable if this incarnation needs to be added to the dab page beyond the general character
Entry #3: a redirect to an episode list entry

– sgeureka ^t•c 11:05, 10 September 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 Disambiguations. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ghost Rider (disambiguation)#Television and redirect: Links there are already provided to the comics versions, which in turn have references to the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. versions, but that disambiguation page does not include the direct links to the TV versions. I believe it would be beneficial to have those links as well. Daranios (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a fork of the other disambiguation. We don't need two. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge contents to Ghost Rider (disambiguation) § Television where these direct links to the AoS versions would be most beneficial. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated to the nom, they previously redirected while not merging any of the links. Merge all links. Gonnym (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the dab page and my nom, which indicate no merge (strictly) necessary. One link is already at the dab page, one is so trivial that it shouldn't be merged, and one is indirectly at the dab page via Ghost_Rider_(Robbie_Reyes)#Television. The reader will find everything they want via the general dab page already. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgeureka: Please review the merge statments above. I agree that merging those additional links is not strictly necessary as they can be found in a roundabout way, but for anyone whose interest starts from the TV appearance, it would be easier to have them. In my view that includes the brief mention, too. And if we can make life more convenient for one group of Wikipedia readers, why shouldn't we. Daranios (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disagreeing with you, but I want to make clear that I am opposed to merging all, and I am opposed to this INCDAB existing, both of which Gonnym explicitly argues for in word and action. That's all. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 11:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ghost Rider (disambiguation) per nom – As a relative newcomer to the Marvel universe, when I look up a character I'm interested in seeing their history in the comics as well as in film or TV, so the main dab page makes sense to me in a case like this. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T-Bag (Prison Break)

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

Fails WP:GNG not very much WP:SIGCOV mainly just routine episode coverage Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a number of reliable sources which talk about this character, displaying significant real world coverage.
Merge or weak keep. The current article state has too much WP:UNDUE plot and could be cut down to fit in the LoC no problem (most other main characters don't have standalone articles either). On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if there are enough sources to turn this topic into a Good Article, so it needn't stay merged forever. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ETA: And there is a Prison Break character with GA status (that I don't even remember from watching the show): Alexander Mahone. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sgeureka. I have my doubts about the sources, but a merge is a good WP:ATD, and allows it to be improved. (And potentially split even if I do not see evidence of it yet.) Shooterwalker (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of piscine and amphibian humanoids

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

Pile of poorly-sourced trivia with no evidence of meeting WP:LISTN * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - May need cleanup. Part of a larger series of lists, i.e {{fictional biology}}. Deleting this would leave a hole in that compilation. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I created this page as an adjunct to List of avian humanoids and list of reptilian humanoids, and to clean up a massive amount of overlinking in the mermaid article. Serendi ^podous 17:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sure certain things need cleanup, but this page would be good for this website. @Serendipodous: is right about his claims. Outside of the List of reptilian humanoids, List of avian humanoids, and Insectoids in science fiction and fantasy, there isn't a list page for any Human–animal hybrid that would be in the beast people category like the beast folk seen in The Island of Doctor Moreau and the beast folk seen in Duel Masters (renamed "beast kin" in Kaijudo). --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can dig up discussion for this subject as a whole. I don't see any indication that this grouping, or any of the other fictional biology lists of a kind similar to it, are notable as a group. If discussion on this group as a whole can be found and show that there's enough for an article, I'd feel more confident with keeping this around, but as it stands right now this list is just a mostly unsourced collection of indiscriminate information. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a valid navigational list. Far more useful than the category Category:Piscine and amphibian humanoids, since it allows additional information to be listed, helping people find what they wish easier. Dream Focus 02:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably rename to List of aquatic humanoids. For the piscine side, there's at least a chapter in The Body Fantastic and a paragraph in this Vice article, as well as many secondary sources on individual examples. These may not be stellar sources with regard to WP:LISTN, but given the recognized navigational value within the Lists of humanoids I believe it is in the best interest of the project to keep this list. Trimming of some non-blue-linked and unsourced examples can help with the impression of trivia. If one looks for "aquatic humanoid" instead, more secondary sources appear, like this web article, where I am not sure about the reliability; academic publications like this and this, as well as this book, which all have "mermaid" in the title but talk about "aquatic humanoids" more generally. Another source is The Stuff of Science Fiction, which talks about aquatic creatures in fiction in general, but deals with aquatic humanoids specifically for several pages, starting from p. 77. Daranios (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Aquatic humanoids" is too general. We'd have to include undines, water nymphs, water elementals, and pretty much every sea god. Serendi ^podous 14:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - When I first edited this page, I had tried to sort the piscine humanoids from the amphibian humanoids only for it to be reverted by @Serendipodous: who stated in his reversion edit summary "technically, if you merge a man with a fish, you are creating an amphibian, so the distinction between fish people and frog people isn't all that clear cut". --Rtkat3 (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pokelego999. This isn't a real topic, and readers can't discern what it is. It's just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE bunch of characters that editors have compiled through WP:OR. Daranios suggested a good WP:ATD, which is to rename this in a way that it aligns with a real topic supported by sources. I could be convinced to support that, but it's a bad sign that nobody can really say what this page is supposed to be about. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cross a human with something that has gills. Where's the confusion? Serendi ^podous 13:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need multiple reliable secondary sources to establish that. Without it, it's just editors arguing their personal opinion about what the article is about. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pokelego999 and Shooterwalker - As it stands, the overall topic of this list is not a genuine topic that has sources covering it. That not only makes it a failure of WP:LISTN, but also makes the whole concept reliant on WP:SYNTH. Even the sources brought up above are on topics of a much narrower, more specific scope, and are largely covered by other articles. The proposed retitling/reworkings of the list don't really work as making it a list of "Aquatic Humanoids" is, as pointed out, far too broad and becomes redundant with other articles, and specifying it as humans crossed with gilled creatures is not a topic that actually has sources or passes WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: With which other lists would a List of aquatic humanoids be redundant within the framework of Lists of humanoids? Daranios (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was expanding on Serendipodous' observation that a list of "Aquatic Humanoids" is too general, as that would have to include all manner of mythological figures associated with the water, such as gods, and other folklore figures. So, an example of redundancy when you start getting that broad would be something like our List of water deities. We also have things like Mermaids in popular culture and other specific lists or sections of articles that cover specific "types" of what would be considered aquatic humanoids. And even if we tried to narrow the inclusion criteria to not include things like that, then there is still the issue that there are no sources that I can find or have been presented that actually discuss topics as disparate as anthropomorphized frogs, Lovecraftian monsters, and Aquaman as being the same subject or covered as a group. And if there are no reliable sources that actually group the concept of "humans crossed with any animal that lives in the water", creating a list here that does just that is WP:OR. Rorshacma (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the secondary sources already listed, there is also an important one in the 14-page introduction to The Penguin Book of Mermaids. It talks about our beings as a group, but does not use the term humanoid but rather "merbeings" or "mermaids/merfolk and other water spirits". With regard to the broadness of scope, I think these are problems which can be solved editorially: As one main use is navigation, starting from List of lists of lists this is a subdivision of Lists of humanoids, which is obviously even broader but still exists. And as much as possible, and without getting into original research, we should aim for a structure which leads to all humanoid( specie)s on Wikipedia. Daranios (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC) Redundacy with something like List of water deities is easily solved by just including the link there rather than listing them a second time, as is usual in such cases and has already been done for Merman, Mermaid, and Merfolk. As I said, an editoral problem that should have no bearing on the question of deletion. Daranios (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness, there are secondary sources which do put "psicine humanoids" and "amphibian humanoids" together, like The Body Fantastic, p. 164. So I do not think we are amiss if we do the same. But there is also "The Pepe the Frog meme: an examination of social, political, and cultural implications through the tradition of the Darwinian Absurd", which despite the name does not only discuss Pepe the Frog, but also what sets "amphibian humanoids" as a group apart. Daranios (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Serendipodous and the existence of List of avian humanoids and List of reptilian humanoids, but move list to List of aquatic humanoids. Enix150 (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cleanup and a rename may be due. Been on the fence about this, but decided to get off of it. Like it or not, this page seems to serve a necessary purpose. No prejudice against a larger discussion about many of the pages in Template:Fictional biology as a whole.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you suggest for a renaming? --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Serindipodous and Daranios. I think the article has value. Does it 100% satisfy WP:LISTN to the letter? Ehh... GhostOfNoMeme 00:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources that Daranois has provided. A discussion about merging with another article and/or renaming can take place later, but from what I have gathered this list is useful and notable and should not be deleted. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time