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

Crowley (Supernatural)

AfDs for this article:

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

Why are there so many articles for Supernatural characters? Sourcing seems almost entirely primary here and doesn't really indicate notability. I say merge to List of Supernatural and The Winchesters Characters, but that page is so bloated and needs trimming as well (much of the information seems lifted from the Supernatural fandom). KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Milton

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

Another Supernatural character article on thin ice. I don't feel the sources here prove this character's notability. Mostly primary sourced or sourced to articles that don't primarily cover the subject. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:12, 17 April 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 Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Galarian Corsola

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

I know that this is considered a good article, but the entire first and second paragraphs are uncited, and it is just not notable compared to other Pokemon with now deleted articles. Toketaa^talk 14:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add this, but I think it is a great example of WP:NOT. Most cited articles not from 2019 (the release year of Sword and Shield) are just mentioning limited time events that contained the Pokemon. Toketaa^talk 14:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toketaa I don't really care much about the outcome of this discussion, but the lead does not need citations per MOS:LEAD so long as the content is specified in the body of the article, just for future reference. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe this article is well supported by its Reception section and through it passes WP:GNG, which is something previously deleted Pokémon species articles did not do. Additionally as mentioned by Pokelego above, "the entire first and second paragraphs" do not need to be cited as this would fall under MOS:LEAD, ergo it should not be used as a reason to delete this. Captain Galaxy 16:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "It is just not notable" is not a deletion rationale. Keep per the sources in the article. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am just going to request a close, although some of the sources in the article should be checked. (sources mentioning limited time events, and also the source from 2006) Toketaa^talk 18:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that relate to limited time events are 12, 13, 14, and 15. Toketaa^talk 18:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fine to mention as they are strictly covering the history of the appearances of the species. That is the point of the Appearances section. Captain Galaxy 19:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you wish to close the AFD nomination, you can find guidance on the process at WP:WDAFD. Captain Galaxy 19:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The deletion rationale was poor, but in my opinion this article fails WP:GNG. It suffers from significant WP:REFBOMBing, but lacks WP:SIGCOV besides the source from the Journal of Geek Studies. While this particular source is impressive, it is too little to base an article on, and the rest are trivial mentions that just touch on how topical the concept of the Pokemon is and for the most part say the same thing. I wouldn't have created this article if I only found these sources, as they don't demonstrate some tangible analysis. This is easy to explain, since the majority of Pokemon don't feature as characters in their own right. There could be another angle, such as their gameplay, but simple commentary on their design is superficial and happens with the majority of newly-introduced Poke's somewhere. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Chronotis

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

A minor character who appeared in both Doctor Who and Dirk Gently. A search for sources across News, Books, and Scholar yields only mentions in plot summary or ROUTINE coverage of Shada (Doctor Who), and anything outside of Shada are only trivial references to in-universe content or brief mentions of the character's role. I would suggest a redirect to Shada, seeing as the bulk of coverage focuses on Chronotis's role in that story, compared to his role in Dirk Gently. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:51, 16 April 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 United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now; to Shada (Doctor Who), I guess, even if this is not ideal as the character appears equally in another fiction. That's one more reason why a pure redirect would not be beneficial in my view: There at least needs to be an explanation that the (more or less) same character appears (and is discussed on Wikipedia) elsewhere. Academia and Higher Learning in Popular Culture, p. 18-19 does have brief commentary on the character. Women in Doctor Who, p. 33, comments briefly on how Chronotis treats his assistant. Not much energy for a thorough search myself, so if someone finds more, please let me know. Daranios (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Perhaps as a compromise a secondary redirect (Either Professor Chronotis (Doctor Who) or Professor Chronotis (Dirk Gently) could be created linking to either Shada (Doctor Who) or Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Daranios. This is a good WP:ATD suggestion for something that likely doesn't have enough WP:SIGCOV to write something other than plot summary. I also support additional redirects if editors feel they are necessary. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Machine

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

None of the sources are reliable independent sources, and nothing better could be found. Fram (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Music, Comics and animation, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This character is not significantly discussed by reliable sources. Furthermore, this character is not the clear primary topic for the term "miracle machine". ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TIL that the character in those videos I watched as a kid has a name. No sourcing exists whatsoever for this, so delete. Honestly this could probably be speedied this is very niche. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a single source being used in the article is a reliable source, and searches are turning up next to nothing. Clearly fails the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No significant coverage. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all. It's possible that this could be alternately mentioned at an article about the video director / animator, if someone wanted to check for notability about them. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I say we should delete this but atleast give the character and animation a mention on the song's page. FridayFunkGaming291 (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2025 (GMT+3)

Spacing Guild

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks any reliable sourcing, and is almost entirely a plot summary. With the exception of this article (https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/dune-foundation-spacers-guild-navigators-spice), all sources I found were low-quality Valnet sources. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, Film, and Popular culture. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Insect Comment Some sources were brought up in the last AfD just three months ago that resulted in a Keep consensus. I haven't reviewed them myself, but just making you aware in case you haven't seen them. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that AfD until after I had opened this one, but even with the sources brought up I still believe the article isn't notable. 2 of them are Valnet churnalism, and the geopolitical article barely mentions the guild. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Looks like there is discussion of it in academia. I agree with Industrial Insect that the article as it stands now is mostly a plot summary in the context of the Dune universe (and therefore the content is more suitable for a fandom wiki). TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Industrial Insect:
- a) Lacks any reliable sourcing: What about the 16-page-chapter in The Science of Dune listed in the article's references?
- b) What about WP:6MONTHS?
- c) Did you check out the sources already listed at the top of the Talk page? If you've overlooked both them and the old AfDs, that seems a lot like step B.4 of WP:BEFORE has been skipped. All those steps are there for a reason, to avoid wasting editors' time. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a) I haven't read it. Seems fine, but one source isn't enough to carry an entire article

b) I accept full responsibility for that. I was completely unaware of the previous AfD, and I failed to check the edit history.

c) Duneinfo is a fansite and as such is not appropriate for establishing notability. I can't comment on "Paul's Empire: Imperialism and Assemblage Theory in Frank Herbert's Dune" yet because the link gives me a 404, but based on the previous AfD it looks like a plot summary. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here or here would be alternative links. Daranios (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed through the article, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but it seems like the article doesn't provide much analysis on the Guild itself. It's only really mentioned during the plot summarization. It's definitely a good article, but it's not particularly useful as a source here. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we are getting into details here, but my 2 cents here: Not sure if the importance of the Spacing Guild and its bureaucratic structure as the real power in the empire is still plot summary or already analysis. But like below, brief but non-trivial analysis of the Spacing Guild being an expression for capitalism: "Moreover, the capitalistic nature of the spice trade and the Spacing Guild are ripe for an analysis based upon the issues of capitalism and globalization discussed in Empire." Would be interesting if someone followed up on Rudd's suggestion of analysis. Google Scholar shows two hits among the six citations of Rudd's paper, both paywalled. There's some preview here, e.g. p 57 (more on pages 20, 72, 94, but no preview). Daranios (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just collecting, "Epic World-Building: Names and Cultures in Dune" has brief but non-trivial analysis. Daranios (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also skimmed, (take with a dose of salt), there is one sentence of analysis where the author compares the Guild to those that existed during medieval Europe. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I've meant, too, and how that image feeds back into the atmosphere/perception of the Dune universe. Daranios (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another very relevant web article, not Valnet this time: Denis Villeneuve's Dune Movies Never Got These Big Villains From the Books Right. Daranios (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collider is actually owned by Valnet. They acquired it in 2020. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, I did not know that. In fact, I though I remembered it being list among reliable sources, but can't find that now. At least it was considered rather reliable in one discussion in 2021. In case you happen to have something more tangible policywise, please let me know, but it's only a sidenote here anyway. Daranios (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios A recent consensus at Wikipedia:FILM determined a new Valnet consensus which deprecated the usability of opinion pieces, which states that they should be avoided. Granted the Wikipedia:VG consensus still says they can be used so long as they don't get counted toward notability, but I do hope it clarifies things a bit Valnet-wise, especially in Collider's case, as WP:FILM specifies Collider outright among the listed sources. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books search is pretty fruitful. Early hits are A Dune Companion, which has an entry dedicated to the Spacing Guild; with plot summary but still relevant with regard to notability. The Worlds of Dune has a long chapter titled "The Spacing Guild"; while the limited parts I can see mostly talk about other topics, p. 169 makes the point that the Spacing Guild is the most science-fiction-y element in Herbert's Dune. And especially relevant non-plot analysis in Sun Tzu in Space, p. 40-41, of the Spacing Guild's role as a non-governmental institution of power with comparison to the British East India Company, and a bit more on p. 158. Daranios (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Dune Companion is basically just a Dune encyclopedia. The Worlds of Dune seems good though. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sigh. This topic is clearly notable, and it's somewhat irksome that this article has been AfDed again after three months. But yes, we've been lazy about making improvements. Let me see what I can do ASAP.— TAnthony^Talk 04:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No adequate BEFORE conducted, was found notable in clear consensus 3m ago, and WP:NOTCLEANUP unquestionably applies. Furthermore, an all-plot summary in an independent RS is a transformative secondary source and useful for establishing notability even if our final article shouldn't be all plot. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- From a WP:WHYN perspective it is to some extent a moot point whether sources that solely summarize in-universe information (whether that's a plot summary, character biography, or something different) count towards notability. Articles must not consist solely of in-universe information (WP:NOTPLOT, WP:WAF), so we need sources that cover real-world information regardless. The essay WP:ALLPLOT makes both the point that Plot summaries necessarily involve selecting which elements of a fictional work are important enough to include in the summary and are thus secondary, rather than primary, sources. and a Wikipedia article based on such sources would need to incorporate other elements to be an optimal encyclopedia article (though the latter statement is too weak—an article that relies entirely on such sources is not just not "optimal", it is a WP:NOT violation and thus not even acceptable). TompaDompa (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even when discounting Valnet sources there is easily enough coverage by secondary sources for a full article with referenced plot summary and analysis. The fact that this is not yet in place is no grounds for deletion in accordance with WP:ARTN and WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Rather, solving these problems, possibly including some trimming of the current plot summary, can be done by normal editing. Our time would be better spent on that rather than discussing deletion. Daranios (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others, there is significant and valid discussion of the Spacing Guild as a major plot element. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Great and Powerful Trixie

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

Not enough in-depth coverage and no scholarly discussions of this character. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters; refs appear to be passing mentions largely acknowledging the character exists or outright fan sites, and there are a couple of limp listicles on GNews. Would say this one falls clearly short of GNG it's not without some limited validity as a redirect to the character article. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters per BoomboxTestarossa. Searches using both the "Great and Powerful Trixie" and "Trixie Lulamoon" names are turning up nothing but trivial mentions in reliable sources, meaning the character fails the WP:GNG. But, as she is already included in the character list for the series, a Redirect would be an appropriate WP:ATD, and any missing information can be merged over to her entry there. Rorshacma (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per all. This doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV but there is a clear character list to merge to, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others, fails GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thrasher (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (mostly primary) GIJ materials, plus a mention in an unrelated novel. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. This can be broken out into an article again if the section is expanded with third-party sources sufficient to show independent notability. BD2412 T 20:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Cobra characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per various arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) (which no one wanted to copy to all of the simultaneous 52 AFDs of the same topic area). BOZ (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as two different Merge target articles were suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, let's do this proper. Action Force kid, though I did enjoy the Devil's Due America's Elite stuff, so I have a passable working knowledge of G. I. Joe. My recollection is that with perhaps one or two exceptions, the fellows packed with the vehicles didn't get much attention as it was the vehicles that sold them. Thrasher sadly seems to be one of these cases.

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_G_I_Joe_Roster/wvYYEQAAQBAJ? - if admissible (and this would be a good venue to hash this out so we can bundle nominate any others; I don't see any problem with it as a non-licenced and therefore non-primary book published professionally) only has passing mentions.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Ultimate_Guide_to_G_I_Joe_1982_1994/_BNjDwAAQBAJ? - with the same caveat; fragment of behind-the-scenes info which would make a nice footnote, but nothing in depth.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Complete_Encyclopedia_to_GI_Joe/rsDmjZyu5zwC? - only passing mentions.
https://www.cbr.com/tragic-gi-joe-villains/ - this is what I'd call a 'third source', as in if we had two good ones I'd count it, but in isolation it's pretty weak.

That is kind of it. Given the character's obscurity even within the franchise - I doubt he'd break into most Joe fans' top 5 Dreadnoks, I doubt print material will bring up more than passing mentions. I would say Merge with List of Cobra characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep for all those nominations. While it is likely that some or many of the nominated G.I. Joe characters warrant merging, it is hard to believe that the required WP:BEFORE has actually been done for all of them. It's impossible to have been done properly in the mere minute(s) between the posting of the nomination. Anonrfjwhuikdzz has already summed up very well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) why things should not be done like this, and I hope this will be reflected in the close. The way it has been done, these nomations are wasting editor's time. A merge discussion on the character's talk page would be a more suitable avenue to address concerns. Daranios (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios I actually think having this one relisted to centralise discussion, allow time to properly check sources and possibly serve as a template for the ones that do need merging might be helpful.

Comment: @BD2412 @Liz confusingly, while List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters is named like a franchise catch-all page, it actually seems to only list the members of the G.I. Joe Team; List of Cobra characters covers the baddies, of which Thrasher was/is one. Therefore the latter makes a better merge target (though honestly both lists should be merged into a single franchise one as I can think of at least three characters who've changed sides, but that's a discussion for elsewhere). BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BoomboxTestarossa: Fair enough from my side, one should be manageable. Just pinging the other procedural keep !voters/commentators to let them know this one should be treated differently @BOZ, Rtkat3, Iljhgtn, Anonrfjwhuikdzz, and Oaktree b:. Daranios (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Cobra characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. The Ultimate Guide to G.I. Joe 1982-1994, The Ultimate Guide to G.I. Joe 1982-1994: Identification and Price Guide and The G.I. Joe Roster, p. 245 would provide the minimum coverage with regard to notability, but they more or less only have plot summary (although I cannot see p. 246). The CBR article has some commentary, but should not be used for notability. So overall, I think a section in a list is best. Daranios (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. I sympathize that 30+ discussions is far too many to handle from a single editor. Now that this is narrowed to one, it is easier to review and come to a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tharizdun

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional deity from D&D. Reception is limited to two listicles or such. WP:GNG fail. BEFORE fails to find anything. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest merging reception to the List of Dungeons & Dragons deities and redirecting this there (our article is just a list of appearances in D&D media and fancrufty description of in-universe history etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Games, and Religion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refs 1, 6, 7, and 27 provide significant IRS or acceptable SPS coverage of the topic. Reception isn't mandatory, and even if it was, non-RS'es would be sufficient for that. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Inasmuch as reception is objective the reporting of a non-WP:Reliable source is not reliable, and inasmuch as it is subjective the opinion of a non-WP:Reliable source is not WP:DUE. TompaDompa (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, actually. As I've been told elsewhere recently, DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content, so there cannot possibly be a DUE violation if no RS has any viewpoints, because there's nothing to privilege there. Yeah, not sure I believe that, but even so: requiring the RS to be in one section for a fictional topic isn't supported by any policy or guideline to the best of my knowledge, even though it is certainly a best practice to include RS'ed reception when available. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - The very first sentence of WP:NPOV says All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. In other words, the viewpoints must come from WP:Reliable sources. I'm not sure quite what you are trying to say with DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content, so there cannot possibly be a DUE violation if no RS has any viewpoints, because there's nothing to privilege there, but my point was that if we're talking about the subjective parts of the reception, i.e. opinions/viewpoints, we need to use WP:Reliable sources. It would be rather nonsensical to say that the text of WP:DUE—Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.—somehow implies that we would defer to sources that are not reliable for their viewpoints if there are no reliable sources to use. Indeed, WP:DUE goes on to say Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. More importantly, DUE only governs viewpoints rather than content is technically correct but a bit misleading/WP:WikiLawyer-ish. Firstly, the content equivalent—WP:PROPORTION, which says that articles are supposed to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject—is just slightly further down from the WP:DUE section of WP:NPOV, and "due" is often used as shorthand for this as well (though it could be argued to strictly speaking be wrong to use "due" in this sense). Secondly, that X is worth mentioning, or indeed that Y is not worth mentioning, is a viewpoint. TompaDompa (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article is all plot, it has not been demonstrated that these sources meet WP:SIGCOV, and that they go beyond a plot summary. WP:ALLPLOT/WP:NOTPLOT (the latter being a policy) ask to be heard, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reliable sources for inclusion and it would be good to keep something a bit more dispassionate about this central figure in D&D cosmology than you'll get from various fanwikis. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk deities where this has an entry that is just a link to this page, but where other deities have a paragraph each. Not clear why this one gets special treatment. Claims that this has sourcing are quite debatable. Jclemens says some refs give acceptable SPS coverage of the topic. But WP:SPS sources do not contribute to the notability of the topic, and this is nearly everything (or else the sources are primary). Dragon magazine has an article about four deities, but Dragon is an official magazine for the D&D RP games and is thus not an independent source for notability. Who, outside of the game system itself, is writing articles about this deity? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy We do :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge per Sirfurboy. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. We're missing sufficient coverage in sources that are both independent and reliable. Any WP:SPS can be summarized more briefly at another notable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Greyhawk deities per Sirfurboy. I'm also at a loss as to why this particular deity gets special treatment. The article does not meet WP:GNG, and it feels like a case of WP:DUE.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' During the prior AfD one editor mentioned having access to independent magazine articles in Challenge Magazine and Pegasus Magazine that demonstrated significant independent coverage. These are not currently in the article so I reached out to that editor asking them if they can provide said sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AD&D module WG4 The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun published 1982 originated the fictional deity, making it more familiar in D&D than most. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is WP:SIGCOV level coverage in secondary sources: the refs alluded to by Jclemens, but I also think the Oerth Journal sources can merit mentioning, with the caveat of appropriate weighting and attention to NPOV as per WP:UNDUE. If there are issues with that now, then we can and should fix it as per WP:FAILN as an alternative to deletion. I also prefer keeping the article as opposed to a merge on WP:CANYOUREADTHIS grounds and as per WP:NOPAGE: it is impractical to collect the information into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. Flip^and Flopped ツ 02:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passed the last AfD and has since only become more popular (inclusion in Critical Role) and has had more refs added. If anything, it is better positioned and sourced now than then. Web Warlock (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are plenty sources out there that go into detail on its role in Critical Role. BOZ (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Passed the last AfD is not a policy based rationale. "I'm sure there are plenty sources" isn't, either. What sources exist? Who is writing about this deity? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then please find them and show how they meet SIGCOV. Otherwise its WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is no significant coverage that has been illustrated either in or outside of the article; plot summary does not contribute to notability of a subject, nor demonstrate impact. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk deities per Sirfboy - The sources outside of trivial mentions and plot summaries are either primary or officially licensed products. Rorshacma (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 05:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. List of Greyhawk deities also very clearly fails WP:LISTN so it's not a valid target. However if it allows this discussion to have a consensus, I am fine with a merge (for now). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Negative checking

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

After a cursory search through the sources listed in part D of WP:BEFORE, I failed to find any other notable sources (much less three) that specifically speaks of negative checking as opposed to someone's checking account having a negative balance. A search for neg check is admittedly a bit more promising, but it mainly turns out online services as opposed to notable sources.

Given that we can't really merge this article into our article on the fictitious persons disclaimer (which itself doesn't really discuss negative checking), I propose deleting this article. Silcox (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no opinion on how notable, but I looked for the Lunney and Oliphant book mentioned on the page, and it indeed has a para on negative checking just as described, on page 728. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll admit that I'm unable to read the book due to technical reasons, although I was already aware that the book was mentioned in the article even while writing this AfD. I cannot find any other sources on negative checking, so I think we're stuck in 1R territory even if the book proved to be a non-passing reference for the subject. Silcox (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a shame, because if you had, you would have seen that the source cites a second source itself: Barendt et al. 1997a, pp. 114–115 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBarendtLustgartenNorrieStephenson1997a (help) and Barendt et al. 1997b, pp. 195 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBarendtLustgartenNorrieStephenson1997b (help). That said, I think that this is the BBC's idiosyncratic name for this. I found exactly one other mention, and it was in a directory of BBC departments in a 1993 handbook on television production (ISBN 9780240513447). (Yes, BBC. The original source talks about the BBC. See page 132.) Uncle G (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - Barendt, Eric; Lustgarten, Laurence; Norrie, Kenneth; Stephenson, Hugh (1997a). "Broadcasting". Libel and the Media: The Chilling Effect. Clarendon Press. pp. 100–125. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198262275.003.0005. ISBN 9780198262275.
    - Barendt, Eric; Lustgarten, Laurence; Norrie, Kenneth; Stephenson, Hugh (1997b). "Conclusions". Libel and the Media: The Chilling Effect. Clarendon Press. pp. 182–198. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198262275.003.0009. ISBN 9780198262275.

The section heading used on Barendt et al. 1997a, p. 114 is "The Problem of Unintentional Defamation", by the way. You will get a lot further with unintentional defamation as the subject name. Of course we've had a missing subject titled by one particular nonce noun phrase instead of the actual name since 2008. This is Wikipedia. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Radio, Television, and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a UK term, not specifically a BBC one - and indeed the example given in the article is an ITV programme, although it is used at the BBC. Smethurst's How to Write for Television (both 2000 and 2016 editions) has half a page of discussion of neg checking under Libel. Gallagher's Breaking into UK Film and TV Drama (2016) mentions it under Clearances. Orlebar's The Practical Media Dictionary (2003) has an entry for Negative Checks. Note that all of these have a slightly different definition from the current article - it's not just about individuals' names, but also about products and companies. I didn't find any examples of it being used outside the UK; from the US, Patz's Production Management 101 (2002) uses it to mean checking film negatives. Adam Sampson (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- With 3 slangy sources where "neg check" is string matched to something partway down and buried in the middle of what is actually a discussion of defamation (the "libel" sources saying "defamatory matter" outright), specifically unintentional defamation, how one risks it and how one can attempt to avoid it, you make my case for me.
  If you go instead to the higher quality law sources like Douglas Maule's Media Law Essentials (EUP, 2017) or Robertson and Lane's Media Law: The Rights of Journalists and Broadcasters (Longman, 1984) you'll find this and more under unintentional defamation. There's tonnes of this if one actually gets the subject name right and stops following the Wikipedia practice of using slang titles and string matching.
  I'll mention at this point that the Lunney and Oliphant book is on the law of tort and page 728 is part of chapter 12, on defamation, pages 727 to 729 dealing with intent and with E. Hulton & Co. v Jones, 20 (AC 1910). as the aforementioned do as well (and which has had impact in Indian and Australian jurispridence). Even the 1 original source cited is telling us all what the subject is. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to unintentional defamation and refactor this content into a section on means of preventing this, basically per Uncle G. BD2412 T 14:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This seems related to the concept of "this is a work of fiction, any similarities to real life, people, events are unintentional" that is probably notable, but I am not sure what is the related term, and whether we have any article on this. Merging this to some defamation related topic makes sense. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Piotrus: That would be the above-mentioned Fictitious persons disclaimer (which has some structural problems of its own, but is notable and fixable). BD2412 T 04:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks. I think it is the best place for merger then. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @Piotrus: I think perhaps we merge both to a new article titled along the lines of Defamation in fictional portrayals. BD2412 T 17:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to defamation per WP:NOPAGE. I'm not convinced this meets the WP:GNG. To the extent that people can find sources, it won't make much sense to a reader without explaining defamation. I am open to other targets. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Shooterwalker. Not enough for a stand alone article (here since 2008), but worth keeping in a page like defamation. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views are split between keeping outright, retargeting somewhere else, or merging the content. More discussion needed to determine which is the preferred option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two cents: Keep. I came here from the credits of a Black Mirror (UK) episode that mentioned "Neg Checker".

This was the first thing I found so I think this article is still valuable, even though it's rather short. Since Black Mirror is a UK show, it aligns with what Adam Sampson said in this message, which would probably be a great addition for the article itself. NullDev (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Flashpoint (comics) characters

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

A list of characters for a specific comic book story arc. This is not separately notable as a concept, as the characters of Flashpoint have received little coverage individually of their mainline counterparts. A search yielded nothing. All major plot relevant characters are covered in the plot section of Flashpoint, so I would support a Redirect here as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A reasonable WP:SPLIT. Remember that WP:NLIST indicates that list can be kept for navigational reasons; adding sources and removing material/spitting the page is necessary, though, which are cleanup issues. -Mushy Yank. 09:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims that were made by @Mushy Yank:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, a core content policy. There isn't a single non-primary source here, nor does there seem to be any discussion in sources of this grouping per WP:NLIST. This is merely the broader characters that appear in some story arc, many of which have articles due to independent notability, but not because they're in this specific arc, and so Mushy Yank's claim that this is a valid navigational list is just flat wrong. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but precisely because most characters have a page, a list is even more helpful in terms of navigation. WP:NLIST clearly states that although "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists" "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." (emphasis mine; but maybe that too is "flat wrong"_. Also in terms of size, put back all this content in the article would make navigation extremely uneasy and a split is necessary. (But you have sources you can add if you wish, addressing the topic as a set: https://www.cbr.com/dc-flashpoint-heroes-ranked/ ; https://comicvine.gamespot.com/flashpoint-universe/4015-56524/characters/ ; https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/08/30/flashpoint-all-the-major-heroes-and-villains-in-the-epic-dc-flash-story https://comicsalliance.com/flashpoint-dc-comics/ and so on and they are also covered "in this specific arc" in The DC Comics Universe: Critical Essays. (2022). McFarland Publishing, pp. 118, 120 for example). -Mushy Yank. 00:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I almost forgot. You now have sources you can add but your reference to WP:OR was absolutely not relevant anyway because regarding content of fiction, the fiction itself is the source (a guideline); see the essay Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary for further information: "For especially large or complex fictional works, certain elements may be split off into additional articles per WP:SS. Such related articles should be clearly cross-linked so that readers can understand the full context and impact of the work. Such an article may have what amounts to a different kind of plot summary. For instance, an article on Hamlet the character as opposed to Hamlet the play would just summarize Prince Hamlet's individual plot arc through the play. You might begin the section with something like, "The play charts Hamlet's tragic downfall as he pursues revenge against his uncle Claudius", and then summarize the events that contribute to that tragic downfall, using all the same guidelines you would in general." That is precisely the case of this list, from a split of the main page. -Mushy Yank. 00:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these bar the Valnet source (Which doesn't contribute to notability) are all either just character listings or plot summaries. While verifiable, being verifiable does not make a subject notable. Additionally, the article still fails Wikipedia:PLOT, as this would be all plot summary without any form of notability tied to it. Per MOS:CHARACTERS: "do not include every peripheral character, or every detail about a major character; this is not an indiscriminate collection of information." This list clearly fails this criteria, and if the main Flashpoint article needs a small section, so be it. But a whole list is not necessary for a subject of Flashpoint's size and the relative non-notability of this particular subset of characters. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This list serves no recognized navigational purpose, and it is OR. While the source material can serve as a source for basic plot summaries, as noted above, that doesn't extend to vast swaths of detailed, opinionated material about dozens and dozens of characters, which is what this list is. I spot checked two of those sources; one was WP:UGC, and another had no information about the topic. If you actually want to present sources, please stick to usable ones. Regardless, it's hard to see how such an overly detailed, crufty list such as this is needed. If you want to include a main character list in the main article, then do so, but this isn't needed (or notable). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the above keep !votes, it does not meet WP:NLIST. Orientls (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claims made by @Mushy Yank An editor from Mars (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What claims? How do you get around the fact that there isn't a single source in this list, and it's complete OR? Or that there's no sourcing to demonstrate this as some kind of notable grouping? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per WP:ATD. Articles need WP:SIGCOV, and claims only go so far. In terms of navigation, links already exist at the main Flashpoint (comics) article, and we could even add them to the template. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list has no sources included that are not just the comics themselves, and none of the keep votes have offered a valid argument for how this passes WP:LISTN. Any notability for the Flashpoint (comics) series itself does not automatically extend to justify listing a multitude of minor characters that have no reliable sources that actually discuss them in any meaningful way. The few characters that were central to the plot of the comic are already described at the main article's plot summary. Rorshacma (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As a list, don't think meets WP:NLIST. And I see that many Categories exists around these characters, which is good enough for grouping. Asteramellus (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time