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

Atropia (fictional country)

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

Subject lacks notability / WP:SIGCOV. Over 80% of the references rely on a single primary source from the US Army. A film based on the fictional country is notable, but this "country" itself is one of many used in military training. More coverage is needed beyond the context of the film to determine notability. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is currently a bit of a muddle that needs work to separate the "real" Atropia (the training center) and the fictional Atropia, but overall it meets WP:GNG: for example, here's a full-length article in the Wall Street Journal (archive).

All that said, I would not necessarily object to refocusing the article from Atropia alone to all fictional countries used by the US military, although I'm pretty sure Atropia is the most notable of the bunch. Asamboi (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Military, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LuLu the Piggy

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

Fails WP:THREE, see the DYK nom. Laun chba ller 00:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and China. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Destrii

AfDs for this article:

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

Like Izzy Sinclair, this character really only has one strong hit: [1]. Barring the brief mentions here, Destrii is only briefly mentioned in sources, and one source is not enough to build an article on. All other sources in the article are PRIMARY ones. I'd suggest a redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters as an AtD, as she is already mentioned and discussed there. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Campbell (Final Destination)

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

The article on Erik Campbell, a character from the recently-released horror film Final Destination Bloodlines, failed its featured article candidacy, and two separate users brought up the issue of notability. Specifically, that most of the sources used for the character consist of trivial mentions, rather than significant coverage. The sources that can be described as significant coverage were viewed as having more to due with the character's death scene, rather than the character himself; or the actor's performance. Before attempting to do any further work on the article itself, it seemed like bringing the discussion of notability here was the only way forward; figuring out if it was even worth pursuing those improvements. Having written the article from scratch and gone through every single source that can be viewed as high-quality and reliable enough for Wikipedia, I can say with certainty that there is nothing else I could find to add. Being too close to the article, I believe it is appropriate that the question of its notability be discussed by non-biased users. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – The subject is clearly notable and discussed in multiple sources in depth. Whilst they may be discussing his death scene, they also talk about the character in depth, and the death still concerns him. This is one of Wikipedia's Good Articles and has no issues and should definitely be kept. If not, I would recommend preserving by Redirecting to the film. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is false to claim that this article lacks WP:SIGCOV. That specifically says, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The example of a trivial mention is, "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that 'In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice' is plainly a trivial mention of that band." Erik is more than trivially mentioned. What needs to be considered here is whether or not the broader notable topic, the film, can house everything about the character. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, so there is always potential to have this kind of article. To frame it another way, if we have a film article with a very long "Production" section, it can be split off into its own sub-article. Character articles can be such sub-articles if there is abundant information. So it's worth assessing the information here. Is it indiscriminate as a whole or in part, and if the latter, can it be condensed? Why this character and not other characters? Would a Characters of Final Destination article be possible as an in-between scope? Erik (talk | contrib) 19:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Final Destination Bloodlines. I don't agree that the coverage in this article constitues SIGCOV. In any instance where the subject is not the main topic, but is a primary referent, there's a strong argument. In these articles, Erik is discussed – at best – in passing or as it relates to the actor, or as one of the film's most prominent deaths. Erik the character is not repeatedly framed as a character in their own right in any of the sources. Honestly, it's a red flag that Erik is not mentioned once in any of the source's titles. Googling for more info, nothing turns up as explicitly about Erik. I genuinely admire the author for putting together an overview of the character from essentially every bit of available commentary, but ultimately this has been done in spite of the notability policy, which the subject does not meet. – ImaginesTigers 19:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of skulls used to depict Yorick

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

WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Yorick#Portrayals, so no need for a separate, largely duplicative, article. Suggest mergeing there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Theatre. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. I think this subject passes WP:GNG and WP:LISTN well enough to justify having a list article. Additionally, it is not a content fork from the Yorick page at all; that page was in quite poor shape before I worked on it just earlier today, so it now has some information from the list, but did not before. The list goes into detail on each case that would be undue for inclusion on the Yorick page. Seeing the arguments presented by others, I'm changing my vote to merge. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reading through the article I feel like this is a proper expansion of unique examples that deserve more context, but don't fit within the prose of the main article. Well-sourced and with proper illustrations. Nathannah • 📮 23:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: with Yorick. The only source used to meet WP:LISTN is a blog. For a stand-alone list, there has to be source proving that the subject is discussed as a group. Rublamb (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rublamb: The subject is discussed as a group by The Guardian, MentalFloss, and HyperAllergic. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: Since the lede is where you explain the reason for the list and its notability, the best and most comprehensive sources should be used there. Blogs are generally not accepted as sources; although it does appear to be written by a scholar. Fixing this will be a huge improvement. Rublamb (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Yorick#Portrayals puts in prose information about André Tchaikowsky, Fontaine, John Reed, George Frederick Cooke, Juan Potomachi, Del Close, David Tennant, and Jonathan Hartman. I commend ArtemisiaGentileschiFan on his work on this topic, but this list is duplicative, and there is no reason to have a separate page just so it can be in table form with actors' images. Any additional details can still be merged there with no issue and there's no need for a split. Reywas92^Talk 01:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Yorick#Portrayals per Reywas92 - The information has been written into prose form on the main article, showing that it can fit very well in that format, and the article is short enough that there is no size concern to warrant a split. Having the same information on two pages, just one being in prose form and the other in list form, just becomes a redundant fork. Any of the good sources and/or info present in the list that is not in the main article should definitely be merged over, though. Rorshacma (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nathannah. This is interesting, encyclopedic, sourced information that does not fit in the Yorick article (for example, because of WP:BALASP) or the Hamlet article, or any one other article, and should be kept as a stand-alone list. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Yorick#Portrayals; this is inherently an extension of the section in Yorick's article, and Yorick's article is short enough to where this slots in nicely as a prose addition. Per Wikipedia:NOPAGE, there is significant content overlap between these two topics, and it is best depicted here alongside other important information about Yorick. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Yorick#Portrayals as the middle ground. There is info here that has enough quality to WP:PRESERVE but we don't need to divide the content to two locations. Archrogue (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Would be very WP:UNDUE to list on the main article, and passes WP:NLIST. Yorick as a character has plenty of analysis and discussion beyond who portrayed him. The reason it is mostly about the portrayals is because the person who wrote the article at stake bothered to improve that section. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The Yorick article previously had some character analysis, but it was recently removed as unsourced. I agree that the other sections of the article should be expanded, but that's still no reason to split this off. — Reywas92^Talk 01:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine (G.I. Joe)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional character from the G.I. Joe universe with no indication of real-world notability. Tagged as of questionable notability for over a year. He gets some hits on Google Scholar, but, as far as I can see, nothing more than a passing mention; the first hit, for example, is from Analyzing the Marvel Universe, and the full extent of the mention is "Other African Americans were the winter warfare expert (Iceberg) and mountain war expert (Alpine), either role not ordinarily associated with African Americans in war comics." Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Toys. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 3 August 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) 02:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since this is almost entirely a plot summary and merchandise, with no info on reception or cultral significance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zaltair

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

Seems like a non-notable trivia related to biography of a famous person. Poorly sourced, and my BEFORE shows nothing that suggests WP:SIGCOV can be met (all sources I see are simply either interviews with the creator or his biographies, there is no independent significance to this outside being a funny anecdote from his life). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Computing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Tyler

AfDs for this article:

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

A side character in Doctor Who. The only real hits I can find on this guy that are semi-strong are reviews for Father's Day (Doctor Who); most hits for subsequent appearances are either brief, trivial mentions, or purely plot summary. The only semi-strong hit I found was this: [2], which not only is solely about his appearance in Father's Day, but is also just the character being used as an example in the setup to the book's larger point. The character himself is not the subject of discussion here, and even if you did consider this WP:SIGCOV, this is the only strong hit I could find that does not fall into one of the other pratfalls above. Given the bulk of the coverage relates to Pete's role in Father's Day, per WP:NOPAGE, and the fact there's not much SIGCOV for his subsequent appearances, I'd suggest an AtD redirect to Father's Day, as that article is likely going to be the most helpful for understanding who the character is, and subsequent appearances of the character are inherently variations of the one who appeared in that episode. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What pure plot summary RS'es did you find? Remember, plot summaries are transformative and valid secondary sources per WP:PSTS. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, Who Is the Doctor: The Unofficial Guide to Doctor Who: The New Series has one longish sentence of commentary on the character outside of his appearance in "Father's Day", which might be added that episode but would not be a great fit. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's actually already in the article. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In my view we do have a non-stubby article with a reasonable amount development and reception, so I see the minium for notability fulfilled and based on the WP:NOTPAPER I don't see a problem with some duplication with regard to Father's Day (Doctor Who). On the other hand a separate article on the character accommodates his less prominent appearances outside that episode. Still, there is overlap and it's not a very long reception, so I am not strongly opposed to a merge to Father's Day (Doctor Who) either. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleon (character)

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm electing to re-nominate this for deletion after it was nominated a few years back. Though I participated in the first discussion, I wasn't particularly adept in these discussions, but even now I still feel this doesn't meet the notability guidelines. The bulk of the votes for keeping were WP:ITSIMPORTANT votes, and of the sources identified, the bulk of them were either plot summaries, trivial mentions, or low quality WP:VALNET sources. Searches still yield absolutely nothing in the way of WP:SIGCOV for this character. This character just doesn't have independent notability from other Spider-Man villains, regardless of how many assertions are made that the character is important. Any of the brief, one sentence pieces of scattered commentary can easily be slotted into the Chameleon's list entry at List of Marvel Comics characters: C#Chameleon. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and United States of America. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the ranked coverage in the reception section, describing him as an iconic villain, not just the first, and the detailed list of numerous appearances across comic books, film, television and video games. This is not just a plot summary. Including just the character's appearances would overwhelm the list of Marvel Comics characters article. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: C#Chameleon. Once again I am wondering why we are leading a deletion discussion here rather than going through a merge discussion as policy would suggest when a merge is already recognized as a reasonable WP:Alternative to deletion. We do have commentary by Valnet articles as situational sources, which are suggested to not be considered with regard to stand-alone-notability, but can be useful to a limited degree for commentary within an article. And we have limited commentary in the secondary sources suggested by RL0919 and BOZ as well as the IGN article. These + publication history + other media + a balance plot summary are enough to write an article which both fullfils WP:WHYN and WP:NOTPLOT. Reception still would not be very long, though, so it may also fit into an extended section in the List of Marvel Comics characters article. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Said IGN article provides a single paragraph of commentary about the character. Even if IGN is generally more high quality than Valnet, the article doesn’t say enough to carry the burden of making this character notable. Industrial Insect (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My argument does not rely on the IGN article alone. Have you also checked out the three books raised in the last deletion discussion? They are all mostly plot summary, but also have brief commentary and each has more lengthy treatement than the IGN article. Daranios (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daranios' argument as the subject means GNG and fulfils WP:NOTPLOT DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG based on Daranios. Excessive plot information can always be trimmed of course, but I don't see any need to delete or merge this article. Rhino131 (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This character meets GNG and has been covered by several sources as an iconic villain in the franchise. Excessive plot detail can be removed through editing. Doesn't appear to merit deletion. MidnightMayhem 19:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw for now. Been thinking over the comments and feel this is better handled as a merge discussion as opposed to an AfD. While I do not believe this article is notable, I believe there's likely a better venue for discussing this in this case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reaffirming my previous Keep based on the sources found during the previous AfD. Also, remove the notability tag from the top of the article, since the nominator appears to be out of step in thinking this isn't notable. --RL0919 (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would like to remind the deleting admin that AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE and comic book fans ganging up to stop an AfD simply by voting keep without further explanation is not a viable deletion argument. Doesn't seem like an independently notable character with all the book mentions in the last AfD being trivial coverage. As for a merge, while possible, the list of Marvel Comics characters is a clearly overbroad WP:LISTN failure and shouldn't be encouraged. Also following this, withdrawal would be a withdrawal supervote, therefore it should not be allowed to happen. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, I gave explanations in the previous AfD, which I referenced here. The "book mentions" that I called out then are all multiple paragraphs and include commentary. Those are not trivial mentions. They are also physical print books from the ancient world (1987, 2004, and 2006), not listicle crap from content farms or garbage.ai, and also not published by Marvel. (You are correct that withdrawal by the nominator is typically not allowed if other editors have expressed support for deletion.) --RL0919 (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity, the withdrawal happened at a point where there were only keep opinions. So at that time that was completely in line with policy. Only now that the discussion has not been closed and we have a deletion opinion is it relevant for the closer not to make this a supervote. I also don't think that the participants being "comic book fans ganging up to stop an AfD" is a description that can be based in facts (although I'd not consider it severe to be called part of a comic fans gang :-). Daranios (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Brothers in Silk

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

A minor set of characters from DC Comics. A search yields quite literally nothing bar trivial mentions in announcements and VALNET listicles, and the current article cites no sources whatsoever. Clearly non-notable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced article on an incredibly minor, non-notable comic team. As stated in the nom, searches are turning up pretty much no coverage in reliable sources, making this group too non-notable to even include in a character list. Rorshacma (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Birds of Prey (team) as a ATD. Please ping me if GNG is found so I can rethink my vote if needed. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DaniloDaysOfOurLives this is completely unmentioned at the target, and the current article has no list of antagonists, so there's no real place to merge the content either. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above (redirection is preferable to hard deletion). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect per above. There is a basic WP:GNG failure but redirect is good for the search term. Archrogue (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm going to have to agree with Pokelego999 above that Redirecting really doesn't work in this case. The group is not mentioned in the target article at all so having it redirect there just would not make sense for anyone searching for the term. And given that this article has zero sources, and the general complete lack of notability of the group, any kind of a merge would not be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Black Widow supporting characters

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

Has heavy overlap with Black Widow (Natasha Romanova); the bulk of the characters on this list are covered in-depth at Natasha's article already, and those that aren't seem to have little relevance to Natasha's character, as many of them are only here due to being affiliated once or twice with the character instead of being important, recurring characters in the Black Widow mythos. All major coverage of Black Widow's supporting characters is already present at the Black Widow article. There is no real reason for a split here that isn't just WP:CRUFT, and there's nothing to merge since every source in this article is a PRIMARY citation to comic strips. A viable AtD is to the supporting characters section at the Natasha Romanova article, where this content is discussed in greater depth than it is at this article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and United States of America. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator appears to have made a typo and is referring to Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) (Black Widow (Natasha Romanov) is.a redlink). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcquidditch thank you! Yes, that is the article I was referring to. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You should get that link fixed while this discussion is still opened. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just done. Thank you! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Black Widow (Natasha Romanova)#Supporting characters: I believe this list is valuable for browsing among notable characters which have appeared in connection with the notable character of Black Widow, but there being only primary sources, notability is very much in question. Not all currently listed blue-linked characters appear at that target, so merging missing content (or even most of the list, due to navigation being not so convenient for those already appearing at the target in prose) seems the best solution and WP:Alternative to deletion to me. Daranios (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Black Widow (Natasha Romanova)#Supporting characters as WP:ATD. Archrogue (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Black Widow (Natasha Romanova)#Supporting characters per WP:ATD & reasonings above. Notability is questionable, over-reliance on primary sources; merge seems appropriate. jolielover♥talk 18:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Black Widow (Natasha Romanova)#Supporting characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE while also redirecting any characters that go to that page back to their respectful List of Marvel Comics characters pages in the same spirit. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. She is not a big enough name to warrant a subarticle like that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feraliminal Lycanthropizer

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

The subject of the article is "a fictional machine invented by American writer David Woodard" in a (self-published) pamphlet. While the article lists 11 different sources, all of them appear to be of trivial nature, only mentioning the name Feraliminal Lycanthropizer and, at best, quoting some information from Woodard's pamphlet. Some of the sources even point out that this fictional machine "is hardly remarkable" (see the Talk page for more detail). None of those sources appears to be a "non-trivial work" with an actual focus, which is the barometer of notability of Wikipedia. 1904.CC (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Redirect to David Woodard. This is part of a multi-year promotional campaign that affected nearly every single edition of Wikipedia; see User:Grnrchst/David Woodard report for details. I'm happy for it to be removed on this reason alone. (So, admittedly, I haven't done a deep search for new sources - please ping me if anyone finds something and I'll have a better look.) -- asilvering (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: It's discussed here [3], [4], here [5]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contribution! But I cannot find among those sources a non-trivial work that would demontrate notability. Your source Nr 1 is a text by Woodard himself, so it's not an independent source. Nr 2 (Experimental Musical Instruments, Volume 14) is accessible on Internet Archive, and you can see it's just a link to Woodards site among a list of "Web Sites of Interest". The topic of the Feraliminal Lycanthropizer isn't discussed or analyzed. Nr 3 is a short review of the "small-format B&W zine" Dainty Viscera, where Woodard published his pamphlet anonymously (primary source), and just mentions the name of the Lycanthropizer without any further detail. I think those sources cannot qualify as non-trivial work. Therefore they don't establish the notability of the Feraliminal Lycanthropizer. 1904.CC (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an impressive-looking article, but like all things Woodard, if you look closely it's all fluff supported by references that are very far from WP:RS. Asamboi (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is interesting primary research, but Wikipedia doesn't publish original content. Bearian (talk) 08:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per asilvering. -Roxy the dog 08:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other editors' conclusions. The article was created by a sockpuppet, since blocked, and has had a total of one banned and three blocked editors contributing to it. Woodward's biography article in 31 languages has been accused of being a self-promotion spamming campaign, of which this article is part. 5Q5|^✉ 10:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article subject doesn’t have any claim to notability. Zach^H007 18:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lead of the article almost helps to serve as further justification for deletion, but most especially after a source review leaves one coming up empty. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robby Stewart

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

Filing on behalf of an IP:

There's really nothing meaningful to say about him other than that he's inspired by Billy Ray Cyrus; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. 2605:B40:1302:6C00:E969:5683:DF32:BAC1 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Popular culture. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hannah Montana characters#Robby Stewart - The one bit of reliably sourced info here, regarding the casting of the character, is already at the main character list verbatim. Searches bring up plenty of mentions of the character, either in summaries/discussions of the show/episodes or in pieces about Billy Ray Cyrus' career, but I am not finding any significant coverage or analysis on the character himself to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are quite a lot of sources mentioning this character (who appears to be commonly referred to as Robby Ray); see [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], + some books I'm unable to link rn, but can be found on Google Scholar. Now I can't do a thorough WP:BEFORE right now so I don't know how often each of these sources mention Robby, whether he has substantial coverage in those works, and if all of it is enough to meet WP:GNG, but I ask editors to consider these sources. @Rorshacma, Pppery, and 2605:B40:1302:6C00:E969:5683:DF32:BAC1: jolielover♥talk 18:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Izzy Sinclair

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

A comic book companion in the Doctor Who comic strips. A search for sources yields only two hits: [12] this, which only yields small bits of coverage, and this [13] which largely is plot summary with minor comments. Any other source mentioning her is a chiefly trivial mention in plot summary. This character just doesn't really have much WP:SIGCOV to back up a whole article. I'd suggest a redirect to List of Doctor Who spin-off companions as a viable AtD, since she is mentioned in that article already and her current article is entirely plot summary. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Doctor Who spin-off companions as the nominator's sugestion for an WP:ATD. Archrogue (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Merger? Also, you can't choose List of Doctor Who spin-off companions as a target article as it is a Redirect, not an article. Please select an existing article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is not kept, I would recommend a merge and redirect to List of companions in Doctor Who spinoffs. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of companions in Doctor Who spinoffs#Izzy Sinclair as per alternative to deletion and after conducting a BEFORE search, I did not found sufficient references to meet general notability guidelines or to demonstrate significant coverage. Fade258 (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Life Model Decoy

AfDs for this article:

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

Yet again, no reception/analysis - this is just plot summary and list of apperances. The old AfD from 2013 or so claimed "sources exist", but did not mention which ones contain SIGCOV that goes beyong plot summary, and my BEFORE failed to locate anything (I had trouble accessing some sources cited, but for example the mention in What is American? book seems to be to be pure plot summary and SIGCOV-failing; in either case, the article, as I said, has no analysis/reception of any sort). Per WP:ATD-R, this can be redirected to Features of the Marvel Universe. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Technology. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reliable sources don't provide enough information to pass WP:NOT and WP:GNG. Other articles already cover how this factors into the story with proper real-world context, and I would consent to an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to S.H.I.E.L.D. BOZ (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have the results of the Google Scholar search been considered? Already the first hit, Re-Entering the Dollhouse: Essays on the Joss Whedon Series, has a longish treatment of the life model decoy character A.I.D.A. Is this character treated elsewhere on Wikipedia or is it not rather within the scope of this one? Can anyone access "Iron Man's Heart? Daranios (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like the Agents of Shield version of the character that is being discussed in that source is included on the character list for the show - List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters#Aida "Ophelia" / Madame_Hydra. The comic version the character was based on is also included on one of the Marvel character lists - List of Marvel Comics characters: A#AIDA. Rorshacma (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mutants, Androids, and Aliens has commentary on Life Model Decoys, using individual characters as examples, and drawing conclusions about robots and androids more generally, but also pronouncing that disctincions matter and that the Life Model Decoy has a very specific niche as a sentient android (at least in this incarnation). So "no recpetion/analysis" falls short. (Drat, I did not actually want to know all those revelations on shows I may still watch.) What is American? has at least brief commentary on the life model decoy from a specific story as a "product of transformative experiments undertaken by a secret American government", etc. Unnützes Wissen für Marvel-Nerds suggests that Life Model Decoys function can be to retro-actively distance a character from behaviour in storylines. Daranios (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joss Whedon Versus the Corporation, p. 74, 125, also discusses how the LMD story element represents technological dangers; while drawing general conclusion (and comparisons with other media), this is again based on the character AIDA. In contrast, "Iron Man : entre confusion identitaire et addiction à la technologie" has similar conclusions but is based on an unrelated LMD. Daranios (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I count at least six secondary sources in the article that make it notable. The article contains much information specific to its topic that would be too unwieldly if it were merged into the SHIELD article. Nightscream (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream Which of these sources go beyond plot summary and meet WP:SIGCOV? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not done a deep dive into the sources. Nightscream (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which means your argument can be summarized as WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on the content of sources notwithstanding, WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES would mean that no such sources have been named. That is not the case here, as the secondary sources in question are currently listed in the references of the article. So that essay does not apply to the situation here. Daranios (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to S.H.I.E.L.D.. Daranios's sources have some fantastic coverage, but they feel more fitting for an AIDA article than a Life Model Decoy one, as they're largely all in relation to how it affects that particular character instead of being about the concept as a whole. I wouldn't be opposed to an AIDA article at some point based on the extent of this coverage, but for the terms of this AfD and the coverage of specifically Life Model Decoys, I'd say it's likely not enough for notability. SHIELD seems to be the most valid AtD at present, so I'd recommend a redirect there to preserve the info in case of a future AIDA article or something similar. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: What is American? is about a very different LMD than AIDA. Mutants, Androids, and Aliens is talking more about what the concept LMD brings with it in general and LMD Melinda May than AIDA, although I think all in the same medium. Daranios (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nightscream's assertion about the sources making it notable. BOZ (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assertion...? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some secondary sources appear in the article, some with plot summary, others with limited commentary. E.g. the Hollywood Reporter article goes through LMDs history and gives their characterization and narrative function. I have listed a number of more in-depth sources above. There is most analysis in relation with one specific character, AIDA, but the sources draw conclusions on LMDs more general. And there is also commentary on other LMDs. So yes, some of that could be fit into AIDA, but I think it is more benefical to have everything in one place, giving this context from various LMD characters. WP:NOTPAPER means that some duplication between here and AIDA would not be a problem. All that said, I think a split and merge to AIDA and S.H.I.E.L.D. (although that yet lacks a technology section), or maybe to Features of the Marvel Universe#Objects (advantage: some LMDs are only very indirectly related to S.H.I.E.L.D.) is possible. I just think there being enough material for a full article and the alternative meaning splitting the material would be an inferior solution. Daranios (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims that were made by @Nightscream:, @BOZ:, and @Daranios:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why do fan articles like this get a pass if they're for Marvel? As the nominator says, there's no secondary coverage here. It's all just in-universe stuff. Fine for a fan wiki, but that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

Coverage should be a redirect to a section in whichever is the best of our infinite universe of Marvel articles, no more. 2A00:23C5:E9AC:DA01:6C4C:4E3:8ECB:EFDB (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TNT, regardless of whether sources exist, it needs a full rewrite anyway as the page is currently unsalvageable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect probably to S.H.I.E.L.D.. Coverage looks to be either trivial or unreliable or both, but this is a reasonable search term that is clearly mentioned in good secondary sources even if not really covered in depth. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources identified by Daranios. These provide enough WP:SIGCOV for the article to pass WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect This AFD looks like it might be trending to no consensus. With my merge/redirect, I see the nominator's delete/redirect, three more deletes, two more redirects, one merge turned keep, and four keeps. But I see some more WP:ATD support if you read in the comments. It could be maybe 7/12 combining the soft redirect/merge support, which would be more than the keeps or deletes by themselves. When you clean up the primary sourced "known examples" this would be a stub with a very easy and clean merge. Archrogue (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to S.H.I.E.L.D., where the concept is explained in the "Fictional organizational history" section. If a specific character has coverage and analysis, that might demonstrate that specific character is notable, but that does not extend to the entire, uh, "species" (for lack of better term) they belong to. The trivia list of examples that most of the article is made up of is clearly not appropriate for merging, and the actual explanation of LMDs is already covered in the main SHIELD article. Rorshacma (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not just a SHIELD technology, but rather influences the entire Marvel comics universe and is mirrored in other media. GNG is met, NOPAGE arguments are not convincing, and the main SHIELD article is already very busy, as it seems to have is tentacles into everything Marvel... Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time