Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

Related deletion sorting

Fictional elements

List of Pokémon anime characters

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

let's follow along with the list of pokémon characters' second afd discussion!!

this list currently has a few sprinkles of usable material drowning in a pile of fancruft. from some relatively quick looking, i've come across three main issues

with the exceptions of ash, brock, misty, and serena, the most notable characters seem to mostly be notable in the context of their appearances in the games (and we all know how that turned out), as opposed to the anime. i couldn't find too many sources on their anime appearances beyond what's already here

on that note, most of the sources i ended up finding, and the ones that ended up here, are primary, unusable, or not worth much for notability. this includes credits lists (tv tokyo, corocoro), voice actors' own sites, social media (facebook and twitter), and interviews (some on youtube, some being seemingly unreliable podcasts). thus, there's nearly actual sigcov to even warrant this list in the first place

from my count, exactly 31 of the 72 sources here would count for that, and about 11 of those are pretty insubstantial, leaving this entire list with 20 sources i think are actually reliable and useful

to make things a little worse, nearly all of the characters who do have enough material to work with already have articles of their own, so what little info they have here that isn't there yet could just be merged into their articles or the specific series they appear in

for debates on which series this info would need to be put in for characters who don't have their own articles... debut generation/series works unless talking about them in other series' contexts, i'd say

i don't even believe this can really fulfill wp:listn, as the only real demonstrated notability anyone has here is isolated or based on their interactions with ash and brock (and somehow no one else), which makes the roster itself not particularly notable

considering that entire sections of this list have nothing but a single list of credits as a source (rising volt tackler gamign), and other sections aren't even lucky enough for that (gym leaders and antagonists other than team rocket), i recommend either deleting or, if any info is deemed worth keeping, merging and redirecting it to pokémon (tv series) for attribution, as if it was just "trimmed", i'm not entirely sure the amount of characters it mentions with more than a name would exceed 5

what do you mean those weren't three issues? consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 18:16, 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, Television, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, Popular culture, and Japan. consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 18:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT. I feel like it's possible that the characters from the Original Series may be notable, as mentioned in the nomination by Consarn, due to the heavy prominence of that show, but in terms of every Pokemon anime ever made, certainly not. This list is simply too broad, and WP:ALLPLOT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Zx and Consarn. This thing is a behemoth of a mess, and I feel you can probably count the list of even slightly notable characters from the anime on one hand, and most of those are already spun out. What we have here instead is trying to cover too much at once and at the same time every little detail, making it impossible to justify WP:LISTN and violate WP:NOT at the same time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:59, 4 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]

Nova Corps

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

Niche fictional organization from Marvel universe. Article fails WP:GNG and is just a plot summary and list of appearances; no reception or analysis found, nothing useful in my BEFORE. WP:ATD-R suggests we can pipe this to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations, maybe merge the lead there? (It's unreferenced, unfortunately) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 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, Comics and animation, and Organizations. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Marvel teams list clearly fails WP:NLIST, so there is nowhere rational to merge or redirect. The article itself also fails notability. Marvel Wiki is that-a-way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The basics should be easily verifiable with (probably among many others) Smart Pop Explains Marvel Movies and TV Shows, p. 129-130, and Marvelous Mythology, p. 210. There is a small bit of commentary in the context of depiction of institutions in the MCU in "Time to Work for a Living: The Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Organized Superhero. ". Daranios (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am still feeling like WP:INDISCRIMINATE is failed by the article, so it doesn't change my opinion. There's also no single place that would make sense to redirect the term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's also no single place that would make sense to redirect the term may be the case if List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations were deleted, but only if no alternative fitting target can be found. So while we can continue the discussion here, it would be great if it were to remain open until that's decided at that deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to that, as if the list was decided to be notable, then it would absolutely be a viable place for redirection. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Collecting more sources: Brief commentary in The Twenty-First-Century Western, p. 261 (plus some plot summary p. 262, 264). "Beyond the Law: What is so “Super” About Superheroes and Supervillains?": The Nova Corps representing the state, including negative aspects; importance in the MCU. Daranios (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nova (Richard Rider), who seems to be the primary Nova character. Given the bulk of Nova's notability is due to this character, and the coverage for the Corps is non-existent, it's likely better to redirect here, where the Corps are very relevant as part of the Nova character's backstory. Would also be safer on the chance the teams and organizations list is redirected or deleted via the ongoing Afd. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mjolnir (comics)

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

The article fails to establish the topic's notability - it's just a long plot summary, with some catalogue info thrown in (publication history, appearances in media). No analysis, reception, etc. My BEFORE failed to find anything that goes beyond plot summary. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest this to be redirected to Thor (Marvel Comics). We should also take a look at Mjolnir and Stormbreaker, which is the same but has some MCU-trivia on top. (If anyone is curious, Stormbreaker (comics) never even had an article, it was always just a redirect). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Thor (Marvel Comics) as a WP:ATD. The article itself clearly fails notability criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zxcvbnm. This isn't separately notable and is already covered more proportionally elsewhere. Given Mjolnir and Stormbreaker, I'd be concerned about endless forks of the same topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thor per others. No notability individually, but there is a highly associated topic we can send this to. I'd also agree to getting rid of Mjolnir and Stormbreaker as well, since that article is sustained entirely by info basically already and/or better covered by either Thor or Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe). Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gillikin Country

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

Article contains one reliable secondary source about the etymology. Not significant coverage. Only other thing I found was an entry in a ScreenRant list: [1], ScreenRant is a WP:VALNET site. Suggesting a merge to Land of Oz#Gillikin Country.

See also previous AfDs for the other Oz countries: Quadling, Winkie, Munchkin. Mika1h (talk) 14:35, 2 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) 14:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Land of Oz. 99% of this is plot summary and WP:OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Checking the deletion discussions mentioned in the nomination I wonder why we are leading a deletion discussion here, when I think a merge discussion on the article's talk page would be the route to go in accordance with the WP:ATD policy. I have added a short bit of non-trivial commentary, but don't want to spend the energy to dig deeper. So merging relevant content to Land of Oz#Gillikin Country is fine with me. A pure redirect would be a loss of encyclopedic content, little as it may be so for, as would of course be deletion. Daranios (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Land of Oz#Gillikin Country in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Land of Oz#Gillikin Country - Like the other three Oz countries, there is not enough coverage in reliable sources that a split out article would be justified, but merging a bit of information over to the nearly-empty section on the main Land of Oz article would be a valid WP:ATD. Honestly, after the results of the other three AFDs, I imagine this could have just been WP:BOLDly done without the need of a discussion without any pushback. Rorshacma (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per all. This doesn't really have WP:SIGCOV separate from the books or the main setting. I see an emerging consensus to work on these minor locations at Land of Oz and the individual books. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Coffee

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

This article does not present real encyclopedic information. Wikipedia not a blog for trivial articles. Ednabrenze (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Companies. Ednabrenze (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial prank that has no lasting significance and lacks independent sources to meet WP:GNG, no useful redirect target. Schazjmd (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Was originally thinking a selective merge to [List of April Fools' Day jokes]], but there is no significant coverage whatsoever outside of the Boing Boing reference. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Squid Game Deaths

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

Not encyclopedic; unsourced, reads like fan content grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability of the grouping can't even be established since there are no secondary sources used within this article per WP:NLIST. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 15:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE, non-notable list with no secondary coverage. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Just because the show has a lot of deaths does not mean all of those deaths merit mention – if anything, it shows the opposite. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Inadequate BEFORE. scholar has several articles talking about death in squid game. Neither the nomination nor the above three !votes appears to have actually looked for any such discussion nor based their approach on such. Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of "Death in Squid Game" is a completely different topic from "List of Squid Game deaths". A Death in Squid Game article would discuss how the concept is shown throughout the series and how it symbolically matters in the narrative, while a List of deaths is just an INDISCRIMINATE failure. It's equivalent to having an article on the concept of Thunder versus an article listing every single time thunder has been heard.

Even if we determined these subjects the same, this would require a complete Wikipedia:TNT, as there's nothing worth preserving from the current article. If someone wants to make a Death in Squid Game article, they can write that, but we shouldn't leave up an article that goes against so many guidelines and has no actual encyclopedic content on the chance someone may or may not write an article on something. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I don't mind if some writes an article about death in Squid Game and includes notable deaths integral to the plot. However, every single Squid Game death recorded will go against DISCRIMINATE. A "List of deaths in the Purge franchise" article would similarly face the same fate as this list. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 00:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Pokelego999. There's a difference between "death in Squid Game" and "list of Squid Game Deaths" (also current title is not great) grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there are no encyclopedic topics that include the words "list of". Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of James Bond villains: the sources discussed the set of villains, and we formatted it into a list. As much as people like to cite TNT, it's not a reason to delete this article under its own rationale. I'll note that those advocating for deletion are far quicker to argue over nuances of topic than to, you know, actually delve into source analysis on what I've brought forward. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could we draftify instead? I can maybe understand your argument (although I'm a bit skeptical of the encyclopedic value of the article's scope; the Bond example you give has a much clearer scope that's more likely to be encyclopedic), but I also think the quality of the existing article is unacceptable poor and it's completely unsourced. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete citing WP:NOTDATABASE and very much crufty. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a database / catalog / directory, but a place to write encyclopedia summary-style articles about a topic. This is already covered in articles such as Squid Game season 1 in a more appropriate way. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all of the above and the list reads like a Fandom list entry. Just no. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 23:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man's armor (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

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

This article was created as a split from Iron Man's armor in other media that was later merged back to Iron Man's armor following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Man's armor in other media. There's no reason for the Marvel Cinematic Universe to be separated from Iron Man's armor anymore. Both articles are short enough that after merge they'd be within WP:PROSESIZE, and the Iron Man's armor contained a lot of unreferenced plotcruft that I recently removed (effectively the 'in other media' stuff). While there are sources that talk about how Iron Man looked in various movies, there's no reason to split this - it's also doing a disservice to the readers, most of whom will end up at the main IMA article and not see the good content in the article here; the Iron Man's armor article now has a tiny, one sentence section on IMA in other media, stating that "Iron Man's armors feature prominently in several films set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe." It should be replaced with the content of this article. I fail to see how the movie-universe armor has separate stand-alone notability versus its basic concept, and why it couldn't be merged. There was a discussion of this previously at Talk:Iron_Man's_armor#Merge_from_Iron_Man's_armor_(Marvel_Cinematic_Universe), but most comments were pretty much "just votes" with no meaningful rationale, IMHO. Anyway, as far reasons for deletions, I want to reiterate that this article is a bad WP:CFORK of dubious stand-alone WP:GNG that failed both in the past and now the logic of WP:SIZESPLIT. The fate of Iron Man's armor in other media was decided at AFD, the fate of the article that was split out of it should follow suit, given the failure of merge discussion to produce meaningful rationales (WP:NOVOTE). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Merge as per nomination in toto. This doesn't seem to be well served by a bifurcated page. Iron Man's armor is Iron Man's armor whether it's in the MCU or on Mr. Rodger's Neighborhood. A single page increases the likelihood that a user will find what they are looking for. That being said, I am not entirely convinced that the wardrobe of any character justifies it's own Encyclopedia entry, but that's another discussion for another page for another day. Foxtrot620 (talk) 01:05, 27 June 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} 00:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: There was just a months-long discussion opposing a merge, and any proposed deletion would result in content from this article being merged into the comics article. The MCU version of the Iron Man armors have enough significant discussion about how they were made for the films that are distinct from the comics article. If this article were to be merged anywhere, I would suggest Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) as a more appropriate avenue, but AfD is NOT the place to try and force a merger just because it was recently rejected with consensus against a merge. I'm sure this article can be expanded to include commentary about the armor designs from the films, if that is a concern. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is as legitimate as any other "(Marvel Cinematic Universe)" topic because the expansive world of MCU films and television series (and even tie-in comic books) presents a distinct vision from the original comic book material, and has its own distinct coverage. With respect to Iron Man's armor in the films, for example, there are details about both the practical costuming and the CGI rendering that are irrelevant to purely comic book versions. BD2412 T 01:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I will ping participants of the discussions merged here: @RemoveRedSky, InfiniteNexus, Maxwell Smart123321, Trailblazer101, The Squirrel Conspiracy, Andrew Davidson, Hako9, Johnpacklambert, Favre1fan93, Dream Focus, Darkknight2149, TTN, BOZ, and Rorshacma:. I was going to do it from the nomb but got distracted. Sorry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no memory of any previous discussions I've been involved in regarding this subject, but if I had to guess, I found some version of the article via a bot-maintained list of articles by highest count of non-free files, and tried to get that number down. I did a lot of that with superhero articles. In terms of the article as it stands now, even from a quick glance it's in remarkably good shape compared to a lot of articles I've seen in the area. Should that have any bearing on this discussion? Probably not. Just pointing out that I've seen my fair share of impenetrable lore dumps and this article has such things as formatting and citations, which those were thin on. @Piotrus: I'm not upset at all that you pinged me, but feel free to skip doing so in future DRs. It's been many years since I was involved in writing Wikipedia articles and I doubt I'll have much to offer in DRs going forward. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy You were the nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Man's armor in other media :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. This is largely plot summary and nothing more, and I'm not seeing any SIGCOV, either from the keep votes or in the article, regarding this subject. I see no reason for a separation here, and the notability of the armor in the MCU is Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED from the notability of the armor elsewhere. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Trailblazer. The film version is independently notable because of all the real-world production information available (design, practical suits, VFX, etc.) and cramming all of this into the bottom of the comics article would be silly. If the comics article is barely holding itself together then why not merge it to Iron Man? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as best summarised by Trailblazer and adamstom97. Maxwell Smart ¹²³³²¹ 13:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge as content fork. There is already an article for Iron Man's armor, let alone Iron Man (comic book) and Iron Man and Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe). This covers much of the same content with minimal unique coverage added. I appreciate the keep !votes who are open to finding an appropriate target, per WP:ATD and WP:CONSENSUS. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination. This is a content fork that does not demonstrate adequate sources to justify having a separate article. The concerns about the article size is easily solved by only merging the notable, well sourced examples and not the copious amounts of non-notable examples and trivia. While either the nominator's proposed Iron Man's armor or the subsequently suggested Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe) would be appropriate merge targets, I personally feel that the latter would be the better choice. Rorshacma (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer to see it expanded to other powered armor concepts rather than merged to a single character. BD2412 T 00:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @BD2412 We have Exoskeleton_(human)#Fictional_depictions and a rather not impressive List of films featuring powered exoskeletons... We probably need Exoskeleton (human) in fiction. Right, @TompaDompa. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  This would appear to be more-or-less the same topic as what The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction calls "Powered Armour", right? I also found a brief chapter—"Exoskeleton"—in Robert W. Bly's The Science in Science Fiction: 83 SF Predictions That Became Scientific Reality (2005), so the topic at least meets notability requirements. TompaDompa (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Without nerding out about it too much, I think there is very likely to be sufficient content for an article specific to powered armor in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, particularly including Stark designed armor, whether used by Stark or by other characters, such as the various War Machine suits, the Iron Spider suit, and upgrades to technology used by Steve Rogers, Clint Barton, and others. There is also the unrelated Black Panther vibranium suit, and more recently the Stark-inspired Ironheart armor. Generally speaking, all of this is more fiction than science. BD2412 T 19:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Trail and Adam. This is a legitimate split of content that was adding undue weight to the comics' armor page when it was created, and by far has it's own notability to justify its existence. And as per Trail, additional work can be done to add more information about the real world creations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But after cleaning unreferenced plot fancruft from the comic's armor page, it has plenty of room for that. And it's hardly undue there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This was a legitimate split and even the OP admits that there are sources backing up the topic. To be quite honest, this nomination reads almost like it's fishing. I'm getting flashbacks to the slew of low-effort comic book-related AfDs that plagued the early-2020s where a few people would nominate whatever and use WP:IDONTKNOWIT and the current quality state of the articles as a rationale (this was at a time when almost everything deletion-related at WP:ANI was getting deadlocked due to tribalism and eventually sent to Arbcom, so the people doing it were untouchable and a lot of GNG-passing content went into the meat grinder). As far as this one goes, I have no strong objection to it getting merged with another article, but there's not enough here to justify a deletion. Dark knight 2149 22:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, where is your keep rationale here, outside WP:IDONTLIKEIT? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iron Man's armor per WP:OVERLAP. This is comic book fandom run amok really, the armor is not that important to require 2 separate articles from the character himself, who is largely known for the armor anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rassilon

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

A search through News, Books, and Scholar yields very little on this guy. While there are a few brief hits and mentions of Rassilon's plot roles, Rassilon himself has very little in the way of actual WP:SIGCOV analyzing or discussing him in particular. Any relevant mentions of him are better discussed at Time Lord due to the character's wider in-universe importance in regard to that species. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:31, 17 June 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. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject to expansion with sources linked below or merge into Time Lord with expanded sections (see below): I am surprised Rassilon only has three appearances in the entire 62 year run of Doctor Who. Especially considering the importance of his character. This article does actually have a fair bit of information on him, ~~so currently I really don't know what to vote. I will edit this once I read the opinions of others.~~ 11WB (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having considered the possibilities of topics such as religious perspectives and the other sources that have been mentioned (which appear to be WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS). I think keeping this article or merging into the larger Time Lord article, with potential for expanded sections on the perspectives mentioned below in both cases, is most appropriate at this time. 11WB (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For collecting some sources, there is limited commentary beyond pure plot summary in these web articles: [2], [3] (closely related to the former), [4], [5], [6], as well as "Doctor Who and Immortality: Influence of Christian and Buddhist Ethics", available at WikiLibrary. A little more substantial, Women in Doctor Who: Damsels, Feminists and Monsters, p. 208-209 interprets Rassilon as "the force of supreme patriarchal power". Very brief characterization here. A Companion to Literature, Film, and Adaptation, p. 246, while not long, is interesting in its characterization and comparison to Shakespeare figure. Daranios (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Villain's Journey, p. 205, ends up talking mostly about the doctor, but the section is dedicated to and discusses what we can learn from Rassilon embodying a tyrant. TARDISbound compares Rassilon and Omega from the scriptwriters' perspective and their relative importance in the franchise (and the same text also appears in Adventures Across Space and Time, p. 31. Daranios (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there are some nice finds here, but the bulk of these are about a sentence or two within a larger article, or are information not pertaining to providing notability. I feel most of these are Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTIONS. I'd be a bit more hesitant if there were some big sources in the mix, but there's very little in the way of proper Wikipedia:SIGCOV on the subject, even in a borderline case like I've seen for a few other Who articles. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and Doctor Who, p. 9, 185-186, has similar commentary to "Doctor Who and Immortality: Influence of Christian and Buddhist Ethics", although viewed more through a Buddhist lens. Daranios (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting, however I feel this sort of thing is more appropriate for a specific DW wiki (like TARDIS fandom), rather than a Wikipedia article.

My current thinking is a merge to Time Lord, however I'm still mostly unsure. 11WB (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, a section on religion in Time Lord might be appropriate so long as the aforementioned source above and other credible sources are used. 11WB (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@11wallisb: My understanding is that wikis like TARDIS fandom concentrate on presenting the in-universe lore (plot summary), while an interpretation of a character from a real-world Buddhist philosophical point of view is the type of analysis which fits in Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Said book does not document Time Lord religion, but rather which real-world religious concepts have entered the scripts of the series. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios That would likely be the case usually, definitely for main characters like The Doctor himself. For Rassilon though, which as this AfD suggests, a full article that includes viewpoints from Buddhism or other religions I fear may be unnecessary.

The point you make however did initially cross my mind after I replied and that's why I added an extra part on adding a religious sub section to the larger Time Lord article. 11WB (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Show in the Galaxy, p. 162-163, examines Rassilon's opinion on life. Which might acutally be more of a borderline case than the above. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the listed secondary sources contain enough commentary to write a non-stubby article which also fullfils WP:ALLPLOT, which means this is notable in accordance with WP:WHYN after all. As discussed above none of these commentaries is very long, but short does not automatically mean trivial. Rather, it is a question if they have something meaningful to say on the topic which fits to an encyclopedic article, and I believe they do. The fact that this is not a main character should not hinder us to include certain types of commentary. I think a merge to Time Lord, in the absence of a better target, is perferable to deletion with regard to WP:ATD-M. But the majority of found commentary does not readily fit to Time Lord but is directed to Rassilion directly. So I believe keeping this a stand-alone article is the better solution. Daranios (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are valid points you make. If the sources do contribute substantive commentary on solely Rassilon, then an article using those sources I believe would be appropriate. I think the current AfD has been started due to this very thing being missing from the article. 11WB (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated my vote to reflect these thoughts, whilst keeping WP:ATD-M open as an alternative to deletion. 11WB (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more participation and clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time