Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Science fiction or fantasy. 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|Science fiction and fantasy|~~~~}} 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 Science fiction or fantasy. 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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Science fiction and fantasy

List of Worldwar characters

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

There are no sources on this article, it seems redundant with the main Worldwar series article, and the content of it seems overly detailed and un-encyclopedic. It reads like something that belongs on Fandom at best. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Worldwar series#List of characters - The main article for the series already has a full and extensive character list, making this a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Rorshacma (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, given it's a pure unsourced (WP:V) WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom. Along with un-encyclopedic content, don't think it meets WP:SAL. Asteramellus (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebro

AfDs for this article:

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

Outside a brief 'Concept and creation' section, there is nothing (no reception/analysis sections) in the article to suggest this meets WP:GNG (with the usual WP:ATD-R/WP:ATD-M consideration of Features of the Marvel Universe. My BEFORE yields little: there is a master thesis at [1] that has some SIGCOV, but MT is not a sufficient source to establish GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 18 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, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are literally more than a dozen VALNET (CBR, ScreenRant) articles substantially about Cerebro spanning several years; even if we only consider each a fraction of a reliable source--and they're really more like comic book issue reviews, for the most part--that's still at least one source towards the GNG. Cerebro has its own Lego set. And Cerebro does get namedropped without further explanation by EW (actually, multiple times if you search the EW archives). Throw in print references like Hall, R. A. (2021). Robots in Popular Culture: Androids and Cyborgs in the American Imagination. United Kingdom: ABC-CLIO. and Dudenhoeffer, L. (2017). Anatomy of the Superhero Film. Germany: Springer International Publishing. and we've got a clear pass. Jclemens (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Meehan, P. (2009). Cinema of the Psychic Realm: A Critical Survey. Ukraine: McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers. has an X2 plot summary coverage of Cerebro as well. Jclemens (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Valnet sources do not provide notability at all; their presence is a null point in proving notability. A Lego set is not an indication of notability given that is merchandising; a company can market a non-notable character as much as it likes, but if the coverage from third party sources isn't there, it's moot. Both EW and the McFarland sources are plot summary, the Springer source is a trivial mention. The only actual coverage we have in here that isn't plot summary is a single sentence in the Robots in Pop Culture source. Your sources are clearly failing Wikipedia:NOTPLOT and Wikipedia:SIGCOV's definition of trivial sources, with not a single one beating either definition. Even if you argue Robots in Pop Culture counts, that's one source, and given how little else got turned up, I doubt there's more, and one source does not make an article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) WP:VALNET is 1) a video game notability discussion, not specific to cinema or comics, and 2) doesn't even say that about video games. If you look, it's listed as "situational", not deprecated, invalid, unreliable, or any such.

2) NOTPLOT is about how we write about things. A secondary source that is 100% plot summary is not thereby unusable, but rather is necessarily transformative.

3) The Robots in Popular Culture reference is not a single sentence. Rather, it's a two-page article on Cerebro/Cerebra spanning pages 103-104. Your mischaracterization is hard to square with reality. What single sentence did you find instead of the actual entry on Cerebro?
4) The fact that a fictional element has been rendered into a concrete form for sale absolutely constitutes "real world" impact. My take on this, User:Jclemens/FICT, has been consistent on this for well over a decade. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note Wikipedia:FILM also tends to have a similar, if stricter view on Valnet. Also, not sure what you mean by WP:VALNET not mentioning this when it outright states: "In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability due to concerns over their content farming. "

NOTPLOT still applies when all of the sources you've grabbed are plot summaries. What article are we going to have that wouldn't just be all plot summary if all the sources have is plot summary?

The Robots in Pop Culture source is all plot summary, barring the one sentence at the end. There's very little actually significant in terms of its coverage.

Your opinion is not a policy on how merchandise should be treated in regards to notability. Even in just past discussions, merchandise has repeatedly not been considered viable for demonstrating notability.

Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Professor X, where Cerebro is mentioned substantially in relation to his character, and thus seems to be a valid AtD. Sources don't seem to exist discussing this aspect in depth by itself. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chill Master's Screen

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

Non-notable RPG supplement. This article does list a few references, with a review from a sci-fi magazine, but do not see lasting notability.

The overall topic of gamemaster's screen seems to be notable, but no indication that this specific one is. Natg 19 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chill (role-playing game). 1 capsule review is not enough for notability. I assume the 2nd ref is a basic description of the product based on the info that it's citing (archive.org has the book but borrowing is unavailable: [2], thanks to Hachette). --Mika1h (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the added sources, I still think it should be merged, the one review is the only source that could be considered significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I have added several sources including that a copy of this product is held in the Strong Museum of Play, confirming this product's notability. I would also add, for the OP who posted "do not see lasting notability", that as per WP:NTEMP, notability does not fade with time. If it was notable in 1984, it is notable (in terms of an encyclopedia) today. Guinness323 (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added by Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Nixleovel (He/They) (Talk • Contribs) 04:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quinjet

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

While this one has a tiny reception section, except for [3] it's all listicles and mentions in passing, and even the linked Mary Sue article is poor - it talks mostly about plans for a theme park attraction, and its discussion of the item in question is rathers superficial (effectively, all useful content is quoted in our article - one sentence or so, with the claim that this is iconic/etc because of a wild guess proposed by the writer...). Meh. My BEFORE failed to find anything better. As such, I fear this fails WP:GNG, being just a barely-above-stub list of appearances and plot summary, plus an inadequate reception section. Per WP:ATD-M, I suggest this is merged to Features of the Marvel Universe or perhaps Avengers (comics). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 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 Transportation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. There aren't more than WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs of this topic in the resources, failing WP:GNG. The WP:SIGCOV is about Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Vehicles, which is an acceptable WP:ATD target. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Features list per nom, since that seems to be the best place to mention this subject at present. Little to no coverage for the Jet specifically. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would Keep, but that's just me. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperbolick Can you provide a rationale? WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:ILIKEIT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
more just a gut instinct with this showing up a lot in universe. Not losing sleep over it. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:14, 18 July 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]

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]

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]

Doombot

AfDs for this article:

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

This is just the usual plot summary and list of appearances - no evidence of how this meets WP:GNG. Per WP:ATD-R and what I judge to be weak consensus on the talk page, I suggest redirecting this to Doctor_Doom#Inventions (I don't see what is useful here for merging, but no prejudice to it if someone thinks something here is worth preserving). PS. Keep arguments from the prior AfD seem to cite illustrated, not-independent and plot-summary-only comic book "encyclopedias", little better (or IMHO strictly worse, outside being pretty paper weights) from fan pages like fandom/wikia. PS. My BEFORE failed to locate anything substantial. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 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} 08:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. This article needs reliable independent information to meet WP:GNG and WP:NOT. This object is already summarized at Doctor Doom, where it can be covered in-context and proportional to its reception (or lack thereof). Shooterwalker (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor Doom per nom. Clear GNG failure, but there's also a very clear target where this is discussed in adequate detail. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor Doom#Inventions - I am not seeing anything either in the article or upon searches that demonstrates that the concept of Doombots has had significant coverage separate from general coverage of their creator, so per WP:NOPAGE should be covered on the main Dr. Doom article. And since it already is covered there, a redirect to that section would be an appropriate WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the Inventions section of Doctor Doom. Though the Doombot that was in Avengers A.I. was a main character and has since been classified as Doombot C53. If we have to merge that Doombot to List of Marvel Comics characters: D, we can. As for the last time this was up for discussion, there were some keeps from @Andrew Davidson:, @BOZ:, and @ThePlatypusofDoom: who had their reasons there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Moth

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

So I just want to preface this with the fact that I love Killer Moth, so I was really hoping to find some coverage in here for an article, but unfortunately this guy... doesn't have much. The article is mostly a plot summary, with the sources only being plot summary or some minor dev info pieces. In terms of Reception, all I found was a really good WP:SIGCOV hit here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Batman_s_Villains_and_Villainesses/hkrYEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Killer+Moth%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA98&printsec=frontcover. Beyond that, everything else is either a plot summary briefly mentioning him, an officially published guidebook, or a WP:VALNET site. The content here could be potentially merged to List of DC Comics characters: K#Killer Moth as an AtD. If there's any strong SIGCOV I missed, feel free to bring it up because I'd love a separate Killer Moth article, though from what I can tell the coverage just isn't here right now. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:08, 16 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, and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the List of DC characters mentioned, no prejjudice for merging, unless content is found that shows SIGCOV outside plot summary/catalogue info.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: K in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mjolnir and Stormbreaker

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

Following the redirection of Mjolnir (comics) recently, where Mjolnir was found not to be separately notable from Thor, this article also suffers from similar issues. No reception or analysis independently of Thor or a movie plot summary from what I can see, and there's nothing in the article barring miscellaneous creation info that can easily be slotted into Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe). A WP:GNG failure. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:55, 16 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, Film, Comics and animation, and United States of America. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MCU items and artifacts have substantial additional bases for coverage compared to their comic book counterparts. BD2412 T 23:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 do you have sources to back that up? We cannot Keep on an assumption that it is notable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that there are 20+ sources in the article is reassuring. BD2412 T 00:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @BD2412 as addressed in the nomination, none of them fall under Wikipedia:SIGCOV that would provide notability (I.e, none of them show the weapons' real-world impact or importance). Many of these are just verifying plot summary, and the only worthwhile content (The dev info) does not provide notability and additionally does not require a separate split-out when there is no reception to justify that. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  What in Wikipedia:SIGCOV requires "real-world impact"? I mean, I suppose we could find sales figures for toy Mjolnirs, but the GNG allows for coverage of fictional objects without more, if there are sources covering those objects. BD2412 T 04:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @BD2412 the Wikipedia:GNG requires Wikipedia:SIGCOV, and in terms of this article, the only sources present are either low quality, all plot summary or Wikipedia:PRIMARY sources. The only bit of dev info that isn't PRIMARY (Or a single unreliable ref from Looper) is a single Comicbook.com source, and the rest of the sources fall under the various stipulations that state an article cannot wholly be plot summary. Given the extreme lack of sources and the overlap with a notable topic, Wikipedia:NOPAGE very much applies in this instance. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thor (Marvel Comics) just like Mjolnir (comics), since the only non-plot summary part is related to Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe) (film design etc.), I'd also support merging relevant parts there. The article is a weird synth, trying to cobble info on two entities, neither of which has stand-alone notability (as seen in the fact that their articles do not exist anymore, or never did). And while there is sourcing discussing them, it rarely has WP:SIGCOV that goes beyond plot summaries, or visual description of flm props. Some sources also discuss Beta Ray Bill's Hammer, so why isn't the article called Mjolnir, Stormbreaker and Hammer? It's very random. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison film/comic: "Thor Love & Thunder: Comic book evolution to the film". Daranios (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe). If you ignore the comic book history and in-universe trivia there is very little information here about the props used for the films, and no reception information. Unless someone is planning to do a major overhaul of the page, I don't see any good argument for keeping it. A lot of the same content is already covered at the MCU Thor page and I don't think it would be out of place to include the few extra bits from here in that article. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per Piotrus. Encyclopedia articles need reliable third-party sources to provide real world context, per WP:GNG. Most of the WP:PLOT elements are already covered elsewhere. I'm neutral on the target, and have no objection to there being a primary and secondary target until we establish a better practice with Marvel Comics WP:CFORKs. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Um.. if comic book Mjolnir was merged to comic book Thor, wouldn't movie Mjolnir be merged to movie Thor? Which has all the costume stuff? Hyperbolick (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hyperbolick: Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe) is already 100k, and will inevitably grow larger in the future as the character continues to be used in storylines, receives new reviews, and is further examined for his character arc. Mjolnir and Stormbreaker is over 30k on its own, already a good-sized article. While this would be a better merge target conceptually, these are two subjects that can sustain their own individual articles. BD2412 T 20:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - But how much redundancy there? Page talks about how Thor uses it to fight this guy and fight that guy, same fights described in the movie character Thor page. We know what he’s fighting with so we don’t need separate mentions of Thor being in a fight and then the hammer being the weapon used in the fight. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the only non-redundant info that pertains to the movie incarnations in particular are the brief paragraphs discussing how the hammer was created for the films I mentioned in the nom; this can be slotted into the article without bloating the target article extensively. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe): In keeping with consensus established for the comics version, this should be merged into the MCU article, given it is a subtopic of the main wielder of this fictional element. I do think we should be careful about what fictional material deserves dedicated articles and how much is included, even if they meet general notability, to avoid WP:FANCRUFT (there is even a redirect to there for WP:MCUCRUFT, so clearly others believe this is still a growing issue). — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Trailblazer101: See my response to Hyperbolick above on this proposed merge target. BD2412 T 20:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Argchymist

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

Article is about a term that appears to be used almost exclusively by new-age author Alexander Roob, without any coverage from secondary sources that would make the term wp:notable.

Neither Google Scholar nor even straight Google yield any result. Google Books has two early modern primary sources, Coelho's novel, and one other modern new-age source.

There are no wp:reliable secondary sources to base an article upon here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Philosophy, Magic, and Spirituality. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. Probably just a pun on German "arg" (bad, wicked) + Alchymist, especially since the Rosarium philosophicum was published in Frankfurt. Can't find secondary sources either. Iluzalsipal (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Look closely at the image. The caption reads "The ALCHYMIST..." (not "the Argchymist..."). If the author is going to plainly misrepresent the caption of an image, that doesn't speak well for the other source that is offline. I suspect this may even be a hoax. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the caption is also wrong in the source of the image. Iluzalsipal (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable, author doesnt even have an article. Metallurgist (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time War (Doctor Who)

AfDs for this article:

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

I've elected to renominate this after the last AfD; I had previously voted Keep, but I have just finished an extensive rewrite of Time Lord, and after digging through dozens of sources pertaining to everything related to the concept, as well as after another Time War search, I'm unconvinced the SIGCOV is here to support the article separately. Looking back on the sources brought up, many of them are trivial, or entirely plot summary-based sources. What few sources discuss the impact of the Time War are largely based around the Time Lords and the impact it had on them, or the impact the event had on the Doctor; these are inherently focused on these characters, instead of being about the War itself. Additionally, the War's real world developmental and Appearance info overlaps heavily with the Time Lords to a point where WP:NOPAGE applies, especially in conjunction with how the little bits of reception that exist are also tied into the Time Lords almost exclusively.

At present, I feel the War is adequately covered on all fronts in the Time Lord article, and anything else present in this article largely just unneeded plot summary. I'd support a redirect AtD to Time Lord since this is a valid search time, but if anyone believes there's more content that would benefit the Time Lord article pertaining to the Time War, I am unopposed to a merge should it come to that. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:38, 14 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, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why nominate this at this time? Was there resistance to an attempted merge or redirect? It seems like you're not even proposing deletion. The last AfD was NC and a year ago, so I don't see that as requiring this. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens I figured it'd be wiser to open a discussion to determine a proper consensus, since I was worried the No Consensus would make it so that an attempted Wikipedia:BLAR would likely be met with opposition by at least one user. For potentially controversial redirects, it's often wiser to open an AfD instead, since it'd likely be going to that venue anyway if a BLAR is reverted. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that might actually be something we want to add to BEFORE: if you're just proposing an uncontroversial merge, it might help relieve the strain on AfD (which is still supposed to mean 'deletion' rather than 'discussion' per WP:PEREN even though I prefer the latter) to defer the discussion until someone has actually objected rather than being proactive. I have no strong opinion on this one, but being familiar with the topic, I'm certainly not going to oppose a merge like this. Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per previous AFD. While the last discussion had some outlier votes, most of them commented that they would accept a merge or a redirect as a compromise. It's better for us to reach a WP:CONSENSUS than promote an all-or-nothing WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Maximum Ride characters

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

Fails WP:NLIST. No references to reliable secondary sources. The 1 reference the article has currently is a primary source to a list of books. Mika1h (talk) 12:23, 14 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, and Literature. Mika1h (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Questions at Mika1h: Could you please comment a bit on your search results of the Google news search? Because there are some hits, but I don't know why they may not be helpful. And did you included a Google Scholar search in your WP:BEFORE search? Because again there are some hits there. Thanks! Daranios (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like the only source that could be considered in-depth for the characters: [4]. Feel free to point out other significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reasons for deletion can be addressed with edits to remove unsourced information for-depth analysis while retaining character descriptions, etc. cited from the novels themselves. The series features a wide array of characters organized into multiple groups and I think it makes sense to keep as its own article as opposed to merging into the Characters section of the main article. Eulersidentity (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly valid split-out article, too large to fit in the main article. The series is now 11 novels, with manga and comic book adaptations, and a film. Best to just have all the characters in one place, than have the same information filling up all these different articles. Dream Focus 14:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't seem like sources discuss the characters as a group, which is needed per Wikipedia:LISTN. Many of these characters can be covered at Maximum Ride, or at individual books, depending on the status of each character as recurring or not. Unless some good coverage of the characters as a whole can be found, this list firmly does not meet the Wikipedia:GNG. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pokelego999. I don't see the sources to support an encyclopedia article, per WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. I would accept a selective merge as a compromise. The main article is only 20k, and a slight expansion of the character list wouldn't tip the scales. (Nor would a complete merge, but I'd advise against it.) Shooterwalker (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Maximum Ride#Characters. It's always the question if a collection of fiction can be notable without the characters. In a non-exhaustive search, a number of the news sources I've seen do comment on the characters as a group, but rather briefly. The more interesting-looking sources from the Google Scholar search I cannot access, unfortunately. So considering the volume of commentary currently available to me, I am fine with a merge. I think, however, that this is strongly preferable to deletion or a pure redirect. Just compare as an example that the Maximum Ride article suddenly comments on Total's character, who appears out of nowhere, no other mention. So a merge would make this more well-rounded. If someone has access to more sources I'd be happy to hear about them. Daranios (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Auton (film series)

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

A film series for the Doctor Who franchise. I recently did research for the Autons, and while digging, I did a little bit of research on these films, but could find absolutely nothing on them. The only mentions were brief, and mentioned the films existed, but said nothing more. I can't find any dev info, let alone SIGCOV that would provide reception for the films. The only source from the article providing any commentary is a single book, with any other source being fanzines or Doctor Who Magazine, which is a PRIMARY source officially published for the Doctor Who franchise, and with BBV being tied to the BBC in production of these films, I doubt it passes a threshold of separation from the Magazine's usual advertisement. This article also suffers from WP:COATRACK, courtesy of all three being separate, non-notable subjects covered together to cobble together an article. I'd suggest a redirect to either BBV Productions where these films are listed, or Nestene Consciousness and Autons, where these films are also listed, as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Television. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I assume the nominator's intended alternative to deletion redirect suggestions are actually BBV Productions (not the BBV disambiguation page) or Nestene Consciousness and Autons (Nestene Consciousness and Auton does not exist, but is probably little more than a typo). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcquidditch oop, thank you for the catch. I've amended my nom statement's links for clarity. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armies of Death

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

Could not find any sigcov. Redirect to Fighting Fantasy (the series it is in)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Games. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am neither for nor against deletion because I know nothing about this subject, but I would not suggest a redirect to Fighting Fantasy because this subject is not mentioned in that article at all. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it should be. So add mention and then redirect. Very odd there is not a list of the books in that article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can actually do that yourself. If that was your only issue, there was no need to bring the article to AfD. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the link is in that article or not, there is still obviously a need to bring it to AfD because the book is not notable.

I'll do it sometime later if someone doesn't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the books are on the list article, List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks, which is stuck in the see also for some reason. So redirect there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it now meets the requirements following the reviews added by User:Guinness323. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those reviews are reliable. The RSN discussion on Fantasy Book Review came to the conclusion it was unusuable for notability, the other is a blog and the other is one sentence of coverage in a listicle. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. As far as I can see, all the FF series have articles. It would make no sense for this to be the sole one that didn't. This needs wider discussion than just a single book. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp For the record, less than half do... so no. List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I was looking at the wrong list. I'm neutral then. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks. None of the newly added sources are reliable, and my search of ProQuest/EBSCOhost/archive.org/Gbooks does not turn up anything providing significant coverage. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks - The added sources are either not from reliable sources or are a trivial mention in a listicle. I have also not found any reviews or coverage in reliable sources in my own searches, which makes this a failure of the WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Redirect to the main list of Fighting Fantasy titles, where is is already listed, is the only real WP:ATD here. Rorshacma (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks - The two reviews are WP:SPS and could be usable if the authors had written for other reliable sources but I don't see evidence of that: [5], [6]. --Mika1h (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dalekmania

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

A documentary film on Dalek films from the 1960s, named after the Dalekmania of the 1960s (Covered in the Dalek article). Having extensively researched the actual Dalekmania after which this is named, I could not find a single source actually discussing this documentary; any sources discussing Dalekmania discuss the actual Dalekmania, not this production. The actual content of the article is just a very opinionated summary of the actual documentary's contents, and the only sources verify what the actual Dalekmania was. No indication of notability at all, and a clear GNG failure; I'd suggest redirecting to the Dalekmania section of the Dalek article as an AtD, given the actual Dalekmania is substantially more notable even if only discussed as part of a larger article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well there is a reliable source review of the documentary here from DVD Verdict, and this off-line reference: Brown, Geoff (5 August 1995). "New On Video". The Times. was added to the talk page, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306 two questions:
1. What is the reliability of DVD Verdict? I'm unfamiliar with the source and I can't seem to find any info on author credentials or reliability either on the site or at any of the major WikiProjects.
2. Do you have access to "New on Video"? Without knowing what's inside of it, I'm not sure how useful it can be since we have no clue what kind of coverage the source contains.
Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk)

(Contribs) 16:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going by this discussion at the Reliable Sources Notieboard here sections 8 and 21, I would say it is reliable. Note that it is now defunct so the site may no longer have the editorial information it once had. Also I read in another discussion that it has been accepted in GA reviews. New on Video is a section in The Times newspaper (UK) which I don't have access to, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - instead of nominating this longstanding (19 years) article for deletion, how about looking at ways to improve it? Jack1956 (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been improved since nomination including the addition of a reception section that includes the DVD Verdict review, and Dr Who magazine review and there is also the Times piece detailed on the talkpage so there is a case for a WP:GNG pass in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306 will note that, on top of not being able to verify the contents of The Times' coverage, Doctor Who Magazine is a Wikipedia:PRIMARY source, being an officially published magazine for the series. It doesn't provide notability as a source. While I do agree DVD Verdict is a strong source, I do feel as of now we only have one notability-providing source, which is a GNG failure. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about Dr WHO Magazine as the documentary is not by the BBC and is not about the TV series but about 2 films made by film companies that are unconnected to the BBC, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's a stretch to call DWM a primary source. Neither the magazine nor its publisher had any close connection to Dalekmania. Nor did the BBC, which the magazine is under licence from. Dalekmania was an independently-made film. The review is an example of significant coverage and I think it's usable here. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 00:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306 @SuperMarioMan I believe your arguments are valid and I will agree to the consensus that DWM is usable for this, given they have an editorial team and are overall pretty high quality, even if they are mostly for Who-promo. I did remove a source added from the New Zealand Doctor Who Fan Club, since while it doesn't have PRIMARY concerns, the Fan Club is, well, a fan club. It's run entirely by fans. I've only ever used them for Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF interviews in the past, since anything else from them is just unreliable under guidelines. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, It almost sounds as if this nomination is withdrawn but I need to actually see those words.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the article talkpage SuperMarioFan has identified additional UK newspaper coverage in the first two articles here imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above sources, however I oppose a outright delation and think a redirect would be preferable due to the popularity of the term. Olliefant (she/her) 06:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article now meets notability guidelines, with independent coverage from multiple reliable sources including DVD Verdict, Doctor Who Magazine, The Times, and additional UK newspapers. --Vjiralb (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the relevant text from The Times review is "The appeal of the Daleks, those pepper pots with an attitude problem, remains undimmed 30 years after the television aliens from Dr Who first took Britain by storm. The fever is recalled in this pleasant documentary about the making ofthe spin-off films Dr Who and the Daleks and Daleks — Invasion Earth 2150AD (soon to be released on video themselves). Cast members recall experiences; merchandise is displayed; and you also see trailers, some in French and Italian." Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations

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

Clear WP:NLIST failure - being a team or organization in a Marvel comic is so incredibly common that this is not a unique aspect, nor does the article demonstrate sources that discuss Marvel teams and organizations as a whole. Overall, this is a list more fitting for the Marvel Database wiki and should not be used as a free "dumping ground" for otherwise non-notable teams. Even putting them together, they remain non-notable and only relevant to comic-book superfans. The MCU list article also seems to have the same problem, but due to WP:TRAINWRECK concerns, I am nominating this first. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:39, 3 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, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me there seem to be a lot of problems with the nomination rationale with regard to WP:SKCRIT no 3. Being common is to my knowledge not a reason for deletion. We do have things like Lists of companies or Lists of animals, which are arguably much more common than the organizations here. We do have a lot of blue links, so this most likely is a list useful for navigation in accordance with WP:LISTPURP-NAV and WP:CLN. Such lists may even be kept without fulfilling WP:LISTN, depending on consensus. "dumping ground" and "more fitting for the Marvel Database wiki" might be the case if the goal were to collect all teams and organizations. On the other hand, it is totally policy-based to included entities which are not notable enough for a stand-alone article but still do have some coverage or encyclopedic purpose based on editors' disgression and consensus, as specified in WP:ATD-M. "nor does the article demonstrate sources that discuss Marvel teams and organizations as a whole" I believe is correct, but that's again no grounds for deletion according to WP:ARTN, i.e. current article content is not the decisive factor. So before getting into the abovementioned consideration based on the navigation purpose, I would like to know the result of the ~~required~~ WP:BEFORE search on secondary sources not yet in the article. And from the experience that comics have been increasingly analyzed in academia I'd ask to include the Google Scholar search in this consideration. Daranios (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That falls under WP:SOURCESEARCH, or maybe just WP:ADHOMINEM, as you are implying the sources exist and a WP:BEFORE was not performed, without actually stating where they are. You could just actually find the sources before casting aspersions. I certainly don't think all or even most of these teams are notable even as part of a list, and they are largely sourced to primary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: I apologize, I did not mean to be WP:ADHOMINEM! I don't know yet if there are sources. But as far as I can see you have only commented on sources in the article. As in any deletion discussion involving notability concerns it would really be helpful to get some elaboration on the results of the WP:BEFORE search of the nominator, as a starting point for their own searches of any participant in the discussion. Lack of such elaboration in my view in turn gets into WP:JUSTNOTABLE territory. Daranios (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per one of the comments made by @Daranios:. Plus, a lot of redirects go to this page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PERX and WP:POPULARPAGE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the importance of redirects pointing here, rather than being a WP:POPULARPAGE argument (which is based on view statistics, not directly involved with redirects), is that a) there was consensus at several other discussions that a redirect here is the way to go, which should count for something with regard to the existence of this list and b) that this list does fulfill one of the basic functions of lists at Wikipedia as outlined in WP:CSC, 2., (as well as WP:ATD-M) and thus is very much in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. Daranios (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep according to WP:SKCRIT no 3.: As discussed above I don't see a policy-based rationale for deletion in the nomination, except for the pure statement "Clear WP:NLIST failure". As this is not at all obvious to me, I believe this falls under WP:JUSTNOTABLE. On the other hand this list fulfills a navigational purpose for encyclopedic content on this topic elsewhere on Wikipedia, as well as being a place for encyclopedic content on the topic which does not lend itself to stand-alone articles, as outlined in WP:ATD-M. It is also a well-warranted WP:SPLIT from Marvel Universe, within which teams and organizations play a vital role, as was also acknowledged in the nomination. Daranios (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is "not obvious to you", it does not make it not a policy-based reason, just a policy-based reason you personally think is wrong. Well, not unless you were Galactus and controlled reality. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So why not just fix the WP:JUSTNOTABLE problem in the nomination as explained in that essay on the deletion policy, as I've requested earlier? Simply claiming something does not make it a reality either (except for Galactus who just makes it so of course...). Daranios (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to answer more directly, yes, the nomination contains a reference to a policy. But it does not contain a rationale why this should apply here which is intelligible to me. And if it is not clear to me, then most likely "Clear failure", i.e. not needing further explanation, is not the case. Daranios (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but with stipulations. Per my BEFORE I decided to carry out since the nom did not specify if they did one, I found one strong hit from a PHD professor, and another good one on the concept of female superhero teams (Requires Springer access). At a glance there seemed to be other hits of varying sizes and scope, but a lot of it was focused on the FF, Avengers, or X-Men. I'd say there's enough for a "teams" list, but my main issue lies in the other half.

I have to agree that the list is definitely COATRACK-esque. What defines a "team" or an "organization" that they should be discussed together? Something like Advanced Idea Mechanics or S.H.I.E.L.D. are organizations, but they are not "teams" like the sources I've seen seem to define the Avengers or FF, and don't seem to have any similarities beyond having multiple people in one place. I additionally found no strong SIGCOV hits for "organizations" as a subject, barring specific organizations like Hydra or SHIELD which have individual analysis.

I feel this list needs to be ironed down to just "teams", but I do not feel like this list needs to be deleted and has a valid case for staying. I wouldn't be opposed to a Wikipedia:TNT to make this focus only on the individual "teams", removing any of these organizations since they don't really have connections. I'd advise the nom to take a look through the individual groups and try cleaning those up though, since I doubt many of them are notable, and it would help this list since it would determine what needs to be mentioned here and what could be reasonably discussed in another article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Your first source discusses superhero teams in comparison/contrast with supervillain organizations on p. 50, but I can only see a snippet so don't know the extent. So there is some connection made. Additionally, our category system currently treats Category:Marvel Comics teams as a subset of Category:Marvel Comics organizations. But let's assume for a moment that "Marvel Comics teams" is a notable topic and "Marvel Comics organizations" is not. We still have a number of stand-alone articles on Marvel Comics organizations, so a listing of them at least for navigational purposes makes sense (WP:CLN). According to WP:WHYN/WP:FAILN/WP:ATD-M this should then be a sub-section of a parent list. Topic-wise that could be Features of the Marvel Universe#Organizations, but it could just as well be a subsection of List of Marvel Comics teams as a closely related subject (again compare the example at WP:ATD-M). All of that however, as I we seem to agree, is an editorial decision and therefore not relevant to the deletion of this list. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this should likely be discussed is moreso my point, whether here or at the talk page, whatever works best for editors. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd rather see Teams and organizations of the Marvel Cinematic Universe handled (redirected/merged here first). We really need to deal with that pointless MCU forking of content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources discussion organizations within the MCU: "Time to Work for a Living: The Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Organized Superhero.", "Beyond the Law: What is so “Super” About Superheroes and Supervillains?". So I guess there is some argument to make for having a stand-alone Cinematic Universe list. More important is probably the question, if we look at it from a navigational point of view for a moment: Do these two lists refer more to different articles or the same ones? Daranios (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if the teams have significant overlap and are the same thing except in different mediums, a merge might be worthwhile since then both halves can be discussed together as one concrete whole, but I would suggest that after a thorough cleanup is done to see what content is actually "notable" and both lists are ironed and cleaned up to include the substantial content (I.e, reception/analysis, any dev info available, etc) Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I agree that the MCU content needs to be sorted through, but that is best to discuss first at WT:MCU before proceeding with any AfDs to determine a consensus for how to handle those, but that is aside from this AfD. As for this list, I think we may need to WP:TNT it. Either this list is vastly reworked or it is merged into Features of the Marvel Universe#Organizations, which already has some overlapping entries. Willfully refusing to update many redirects should not be an excuse to not improve an article. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 15:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trailblazer101: I see a lot of room for improvement, but hardly a reason for WP:TNT. Again looking at it from a navigational point of view: There are a number of relevant entities under Category:Marvel Comics organizations, and a lot of blue links here. Assuming that at least a relevant percentage of these are what they are supposed to be (links to articles or redirects to where the topic is treated within another article), there is a lot which currently is useful, while WP:TNT says, start over if there's nothing useful except the title. So to improve it I would say the order should be to more clearly formulate inclusion criterea, then comb through the list according to these, see what we have then. If what remains is comparatively small (which I don't expect), then one can think about a merge to Features of the Marvel Universe#Organizations. Thinking about it now, when the list is a whopping 220 kB and the suggested target is 127 kB seems not helpful to me. Daranios (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think operating by TNT in spirit but not totally would be an ideal solution, as in the contents of this list are trimmed down significantly to the bare essentials. That could make a potential merge easier and be able to better assess what is actually notable between what is trivial or not that important. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but merging should not be an end in itself. If removing entries not fitting for an encyclopedia article leads to a short list, then that's all nice and good. But if not, then it should stay separate. And the aim should not be "as short as possible", but to include what makes sense to give "access to the sum of all human knowledge" without becoming WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And then comes my ususal view of things: Include blue-linked entries for navigation, including a reasonable summary description; and include entries which are non-notable but on which something can be said in the encyclopedic context. This can mean entries where secondary sources have something to say about them, but not to the extent that warrants a stand-alone article. Daranios (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While such issues can be brought in task force discussion, it's important to remember that such a forum is heavily biased towards inclusionism for its topic, as it is populated by broadly understood fans of the topic. (This is also a problem that plagues most merge and talk page discussions; and sure, you could make argument in reverse for AfD and like... sigh). Anyway, MCU existence has generated plenty of good sources, but often they tend to estabilish notability of the primary concept, with no need for a MCU-only fork (which generally only adds some info on casting and movie/TV prop creation; even readers are not served by the forking usually - for all but the few key characters/concepts, a MCU section in the main article for whatever topic we are talking about would suffice). Just look at the list nominated here and the MCU equivalent - there's a ton of overlap. I'd suggest merging them - there's no good reason for the split. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Care to count the current percentages of the two lists linking to Marvel Comics themed and MCU-specific articles, respectively? Daranios (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Extra

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

Another web-series, similar to the recently AfD'd Doctor Who: Access all Areas. A search for sources yields only WP:ROUTINE coverage of the series' announcement or PRIMARY coverage by the BBC's Doctor Who sites. All coverage in the article currently are either unreliable fansites, or similar, trivial, ROUTINE coverage. No indication of importance or impact beyond existing, and doesn't meet WP:GNG or any WP:SIGCOV bar. I'd suggest a redirect or merge to either Doctor Who series 8 or Doctor Who series 9, which this series focused on, as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Internet, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Doctor Who series 8 per nom ^{themoon@talk:~$} 09:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 2RDD (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions

Exiles to Glory (via WP:PROD on 11 April 2025)