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

List of playing cards related anime and manga

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

Creator objected to proposed deletion. They provided sources on the article's talk page, but I'm not really convinced by them; one is a YouTube video by Mother's Basement (an obviously unreliable source), another is a BackerKit page for a TTRPG, and yet a third one isn't a meaningful source at all, but just a content tag on CoroCoro's website. The others they linked are at least from sites that could conceivably be utilized in Wikipedia, but they're all mostly discussing Yu-Gi-Oh, with a couple of them mentioning other series in passing mostly in relation to Yu-Gi-Oh. Several of the not-outright-unreliable or user-generated sources here are from WP:VALNET, and most of the rest are just from Anime News Network. The current state of the article is generally poorly sourced, and I don't see the potential state looking much better. It doesn't look like this passes NLIST. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Visual arts, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, Games, and Popular culture. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no substantial change in the article after the objection from Setenzatsu.2 (talk · contribs). The issue with the user is clearly a WP:IDHT case, and I wonder why they did not receive any kind of sanction after being reported to ANI. Xexerss (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the discussion, it seems to me like they went inactive for a few days and no one followed up on it before the topic got archived. They also never responded to the discussion and didn't edit between May 21st and 25th, so I'd say it was a pretty clear case of ANI flu. Obviously this AfD isn't the right venue to discuss their conduct, but given the quite obvious WP:RADAR issues it should probably be dealt with somehow. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just noting first finds: There's a brief comment on the topic in this magazine; Handbook of Research on Teaching Literacy Through the Communicative and Visual Arts, Volume II, p. 254, provides some more serious commentary on card games within anime and manga fandom, although mixed with other activities. Can anyone see if there is something relevant on p. 19 of A Kid's Guide to Anime & Manga? This web article looks at one angle of the overall topic; not completely sure if this is a reliable source. Daranios (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manga: The Complete Guide, p. 122, has a sentence of comparison between card games related to manga vs. video games. Trading Card Games For Dummies has a 13-page chapter on trading card games related to anime, manga and comics. Daranios (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be possible to create an article about card-themed anime and manga series (I can't think of a particular title at the moment). The problem is this list article and its poorly sourced and worded content. I don't feel like I'm reading an encyclopedic Wikipedia article, but a Fandom article or something like that. Xexerss (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even if this article topic is notable, I'm not sure a list is the appropriate way to cover it, and I think WP:TNT applies. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename to List of card games related anime and manga or something more simple. As by the discussion above, I don't think WP:NLIST is actually a problem. I also don't think this is a case of WP:TNT, which would mean that nothing here is usable in an encyclopedic article: The introduction needs sources, and then probably a rephrasing in accordance with the sources. But this is primarily a list, so that's a minor issue. The list below could nicely fulfill the purpose of navigation which is one of major reasons to have list at Wikipedia, if non-relevant examples were removed. There's enough blue links here to still constitute a proper list after such a trim. Other examples should in my view only be included if their inclusion can be verified by a reliable secondary source, solving the other issue raised in the nomination. So in total, spelling out an inclusion critereon and implementing it can save this through normal editing, which means deletion is not appropriate in accordance with WP:ARTN and WP:ATD. Daranios (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of card games related anime and manga per above. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No actual need for this list. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Sun (character)

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

This and this are the only independent sources I was able to find on this character. This is an incredibly minor villain (outside Shang-Chi's origin story), so there isn't a lot that can be written about the subject beyond plot synopsis.

It's been tagged for notability concerns for awhile, and it has had known issues with its over-reliance on primary sources since 2014. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shang-Chi, as WP:Alternative to deletion, where the character is already mentioned, and which can at the very least benefit from the one/two independent source/s present. Daranios (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shang-Chi - Minor fictional character that really does not have much in the way of reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG. But, their role in Shang-Chi's background is already included in that article, so that would make a reasonable redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Janette DuCharme

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

Largely unreferenced article which is just an overlong plot synopsis without any further analysis. WP:FANCRUFT --wooden superman 07:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. --wooden superman 07:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Forever Knight - Not enough sources to pass the WP:GNG, but is already covered on the main article for the TV series, so redirecting there is a reasonable WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. Not enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG. There is an adequate WP:ATD here. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Knight (Forever Knight)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tipton Hotel

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

Not much more than in-universe trivia, other than the outside being taken from a real hotel. Certainly nothing that warrants a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Light Merge to The Suite Life of Zack & Cody - There does not appear to be the kind of significant coverage in reliable sources that would allow this to pass the WP:GNG on its own right, and justify a split from the main article on the series. The little bit of real-world info regarding the filming location of the exterior of the building can potentially be merged into the "Production" section of the series' article. Rorshacma (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Suite Life of Zack & Cody per Rorshacma. Seems like some good information to merge to the show's article and is a reasonable search term. Malinaccier (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Mackey

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

Non-notable character, fails GNG. Almost all of the sources are primary, and the ones that aren't are of questionable reliability and/or do not demonstrate significant coverage. A WP:BEFORE search did not yield results. Madeleine (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Halsall, Alison (2008). "Bigger Longer & Uncut: South Park and the Carnivalesque". In Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew (ed.). Taking South Park Seriously. Albany: SUNY Press. pp. 35–36. doi:10.2307/jj.18253053.6. ISBN 978-0-7914-7565-2. JSTOR jj.18253053.6. Retrieved 2025-05-25 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "No better example demonstrates Parker and Stone's concern with the scatological than Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo, the talking piece of shit who "comes out of the toilet once a year to give presents to all the little boys and girls who have fiber in their diets." Mr. Hankey is excrement incarnate: He jumps out of the toilet and leaves a brown mark, a smear, a stain, on every surface he touches as a reminder to the viewer of the inherent dirtiness of the human body no matter how much we try to aestheticize it.* Mr. Hankey's stains systematically mess up the cleanliness of the social order. ... What makes Mr. Hankey such a complicated piece of shit, however, is the fact that he is also a parody of one of the most widely recognized icons of American popular culture, Mickey Mouse, complete with plump brown body, gloved hands and large, happy eyes. Both are lovable, kind, and spout inanities. Consider Mr. Hankey's nonsensical expression to Kyle: "Gosh, Kyle, you smell like flowers." Parker and Stone pervert this world-renowned cultural icon by suggesting that he is nothing more than a piece of shit; further, their codification of Mr. Hankey as a "Christmas Poo" characterizes Christmas, ... as shit. ... As a brown smear, Mr. Hankey operates repeatedly as a force of disruption. Significantly, in the "Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo" episode, Hankey helps to thwart the sanitization of the Christian holiday that the mayor and inhabitants of South Park are promoting, especially in their nondenominational and therefore inoffensive holiday pageant designed by Philip Glass. In the episode "A Very Crappy Christmas," Mr. Hankey's noted absence from the town leaves the inhabitants with no Christmas spirit; again, then, the absence of this piece of holiday shit disrupts the "regular" commercialism that Parker and Stone use to characterize the Christmas season."
  The book notes in a footnote: "The difficulty that this character offers also lies in the fact that, like Mickey Mouse, Mr. Hankey is a minstrel figure, a figure who is conventionally a member of a and of entertainers with blackened faces, performing songs and music ostensibly of African-American origin."
2. Thompson, Dave (2014). South Park FAQ: All That's Left to Know About The Who, What, Where, When of America's Favorite Mountain Town. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Applause Theatre and Cinema Books. ISBN 978-1-4803-5064-9. Retrieved 2025-05-25 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "School counselor and occasional teacher Mr. Mackey is widely regarded as one of the most levelheaded members of the South Park Elementary faculty, rarely flustered, seldom enraged, and prone to reinforce his every point with a casual, friendly exclamation of "mkay?" However, he is also prey to occasional misunderstandings and miscalculations, such as the time a sample of marijuana he was utilizing in a drug education class was stolen. He was subsequently fired, and, having also lost his apartment, he briefly became a drug user himself. During this period he married a fellow addict; the pair then honeymooned in India, before Mackey alone was rescued by the A Team. Disturbingly, although the marriage was consummated, Mackey was so high at the time he had no memory of the event."
3. Fisher, Roy; Harris, Ann; Jarvis, Christine (2008). Education in Popular Culture: Telling Tales on Teachers and Learners. London: Routledge. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-415-33241-5. Retrieved 2025-05-25 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "South Park's school counsellor, Mr Mackey, is another sad misfit who fails the children. He too merely carries out orders. The children are sent to him to be 'cured' of their swearing. He doesn't counsel, but lectures them on their bad behaviour, then entertains them with a totally inappropriate song, 'It's Easy MKay?', that parodies the 'Just Say No' anti-drugs campaign, revealing an equally unsubtle and ill-informed approach to a social problem. The ineffectual nature of his interventions is encapsulated by the fact that after joining in a rousing chorus of the song, the children go straight back to see the film that introduced them to the language in the first place. The film and the series offer a painful critique of approaches to education that focus on superficial rather than deep learning and which are undemocratic and complacent about wider social and political debates."
4. Peters, Mark (2007). Yada, Yada, Doh! 111 Television Words That Made the Leap from the Screen to Society. Oak Park, Illinois: Marion Street Press. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-933338-31-6. Retrieved 2025-05-25 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "TV Origin: M'kay is best known as the catchphrase of Mr. Mackey, the guidance counselor on South Park. His first episode was “Mr. Hankey,The Christmas Poo” (written by Trey Parker, Dec. 17, 1997), and the word was first used as Mackey confronted a very confused Kyle, whose singing, Santa-hat-clad friend Mr. Hankey is only perceived as a garden-variety piece of crap by the rest of the world. Mr. Mackey says: “Now, uh, Kyle, as your school counselor, I want to try and help you confront your problem, m’kay?” In an introduction to the episode, Trey Parker says Mr. Mackey was based on one of his counselors from junior high."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Mr. Mackey to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking the first source per below. I think the remaining sources are enough for Mr. Mackey to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Deletion is not best approach when there are alternatives to deletion like merging to List of South Park characters#Mr. Mackey. Cunard (talk) 09:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Cunard above. /Julle (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect due to trivial sources. Please note @Cunard that your first source above is not about Mr. Mackey whatsoever. Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Cunard. Very interested to hear why none of these sources turned up in the BEFORE the nominator said they had done. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I still don't understand why you think the sources are good enough for a standalone Wikipedia article. The first two sources do not help the article pass MOS:FICTIONAL, which states that: "Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should use the real world as their primary frame of reference. As such, the subject should be described from the perspective of the real world". The sources are written from an in-universe perspective. The third source states that someone in the real world picked up the catchphrase "m'kay?", but again I don't see why this warrants a Wikipedia page for the character. Geschichte (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found two more books that contain some critical analysis focused on the character, as a vehicle for social commentary on disability rights and sexual education respectively. See Deconstructing South Park: Critical Examinations of Animated Transgression by Brian Cogan and Taking South Park Seriously by Jeffrey Weinstock. The analysis only spans a few pages within the ~hundreds of pages of each book, but I think it is enough to constitute WP:SIGCOV, especially when combined with Cunard's other sources. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 16:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stobotnik

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

I was made aware of this article when I was notified it linked to an article of mine. I find it to be non-notable, with only The Mary Sue article and the ComingSoon.net interview as sources for establishing notability (probably for the former, as it doesn't dive into fan works much). The Washington Post article doesn't provide WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage in my view. The Anthem Magazine interview does cover the relationship between the characters in the stories, but not the fan ship, and the Toronto Star article barely covers the relationship itself, as does the the IGN article. The Kotaku article cannot be used at all due to Kotaku articles written since 2023 having been declared unreliable. The rest of the sources are WP:VALNET sources, which cannot be used to establish notability. Google News searches for "stobotnik", "stone x robotnik", and "robotnik x stone" only brought up some of the prior sources, Valnet sources, and an interview that doesn't cover the fan ship (from reading the automatically-generated transcript). ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 17:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Internet. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 17:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect if a suitable target is found. Setting aside the reliability of sources (sad to learn Kotaku went to the dogs, didn't know...), I don't see how WP:SIGCOV is met. Not a single cited source uses "Stobotnik" in it's heading. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Piotrus. This doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV without more sources that directly cover the topic in detail. I'm open to redirects, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to, hmm, I guess Sonic the Hedgehog 2#Reception. Even the nomination acknowledges that there is treatment in reliable secondary sources. If these are considered too little coverage to establish stand-alone notability, WP:ATD-M and WP:GNG's If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might nonetheless be useful to discuss it within another article apply. A pure redirect would of limited use, as the topic to my knowledge is not yet discussed elsewhere. Daranios (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks to the nominator for spelling out the results of her WP:BEFORE search. That often does not happen in a deletion nomination but is very helpful. Daranios (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Significant coverage can indicate an cultural trend is presumably notable, but when the trend itself is not defined by the term used, is so shallow and inextricably tied to a broader property, then no coverage really justifies an article. On merging - why not? It's not like there's much here to merge anyway. It should be easy to import a single sentence - Fan reactions to the evolving relationship between Agent Stone and Dr. Robotnik were favorable, prompting the creation of shipping and fanfiction that was acknowledged by Majdoub and Carrey. I wouldn't suggest this really merits any more than that. Otherwise, delete. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Head (G.I. Joe)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG entirely. Mostly plot article of a non-notable cartoon character. (The previous nomination was closed as procedural keep due to the nom's disruption, but the merits were not discussed at all). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:16, 15 May 2025 (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) 07:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Toys. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. As in actually merge rather than just redirect so there's not less about the character than there is than Colonel Courage, as there's clearly some very minor notability, if not enough to justify a standalone
- https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Ultimate_Guide_to_G_I_Joe_1982_1994/_BNjDwAAQBAJ? and https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fPYYEQAAQBAJ don't have much in-depth of the guy but would probably make acceptable citations of the basic facts in a list article.
- https://thehardtimes.net/lists/every-g-i-joe-ranked-by-how-well-they-could-teach-a-sex-ed-class/ and https://thehardtimes.net/lists/50-g-i-joe-characters-ranked-by-how-effectively-they-could-have-stopped-9-11/ are a bit useless, even on the zany listicle scale. LOL, he has BO, it was mentioned on his filecard and never again.
- https://lylesmoviefiles.com/2013/03/25/g-i-joe-the-movie-review-an-80s-classic-revisited/ again provides a source for citation of his role in the movie, but not in depth to justify a standalone
- While some of the capsules at https://screenrant.com/gi-joe-3-characters-villains-discussion/ could probably help stub a Reception section, Beach Head's isn't one of them.
As an overall point, this one can function nicely as a test case.

I'm not actually sure any of the G. I. Joe characters flood-nominated recently warrant deletion, most of them just need to be merged to the appropriate character list articles, as the vast majority have *some* notability, even if it's far from what's needed for GNG. As merging after an AfD involves simply redirecting because closing admins are busy people, I would suggest the sub-par Joe articles would be better sorted through proactive use of editing and merge/redirect templates, which would be a less time-consuming method for everyone involved, and probably wouldn't take any more time than decent BEFORE and researching AfD votes. Otherwise there's the risk we end up in one of those moronic loops where the list directs people to the main article, which directs people back to the list, which is a lot more irritating to 99% of readers of Wikipedia than an article being on the crufty side. Personally don't see the need to have a ticking clock on that being done after 19 years or whatever of the article being there. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was wondering on if you are for or against the merge. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Allfather (Benison) (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:ATD and WP:CONSENSUS. I don't see how this meets WP:SIGCOV, but it's healthy for this community to strive for middle ground so we can actually fix things. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Domdaniel

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

No significant coverage for this fictional place. SL93 (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE is hard here, because domdaniel is also a word meaning "a den of inquiry",[1]. There's also a WP:NOTDIC issue here where the article just extracts WP:OR of various times the word has been used. It seems to have been coined in One Thousand and One Nights, so there could be a valid WP:ATD as a search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of mythological places as an WP:Alternative to deletion. This is a relevant place in two works of fiction, which is referenced in a number of younger works of fiction as can be seen in the number of primary and secondary sources both present in the article and especially those appearing in the WP:BEFORE search. This role and connectivity in my view goes beyond a dictionary definition, so this should have some place on Wikipedia. Presence in Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable indicates that as well. There's a rather extensive discussion in this paper on the Thalaba version. Oriental influences in the English Literature of the early nineteenth century, p. 25, discusses the Arabian Nights - Thalaba connection. Britain and the Muslim World, p. 132 has an interesting one-sentence-comparison to Hogwarts. The secondary sources I've seen in a brief search are short on the Domdaniel beyond the specific work of Thalaba, so I don't think a stand-alone article is warranted so far, but deletion would be a loss. Daranios (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

....or weak keep concurring with Hannes Röst. At least Babylonian Influence on the Bible and Popular Beliefs has an additional background on etymology beyond what's in the other sources or the Merriam-Webster entry. Daranios (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Daranios (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The article is severely unsourced, but there are many sources about the subject in Google Books and on the web. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep : the problem with subjects like this is that we require reliable secondary sources, not just usage of the term in primary works of fiction/poems/tales. So preferably a (scholarly) discussion about the place, not just evidence that the word is used by someone. I found [2] [3] [4] (probably there are more) on top of the three sources found above which is not as in depth as I would like but at least there are multiple independent secondary sources on this topic which should be enough for a short article. --hroest 13:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge Any sources I found only mention this term briefly, and not in a consistent way. Sometimes I do see the connectivity but a lot of times I don't. I prefer WP:ATD and we could group these together somehow, if someone can parse out when a mention is related and when it's not. Archrogue (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The article is a terrible, undereferenced mess. Sources above are meh, as admitted even by the editosr who found them. Np prejudice to seeing this improved, sure, but in the current form it is unacceptable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note this - Whether the article has many references or not is not an issue. As long as the subject is notable, they can be found and added. Can we have a proper evaluation of the sources discussed per policies?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time