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[edit]

Tor Valum[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any evidence of individual notability here. While the unused scripts of Rise of Skywalker have coverage, Valum has absolutely none. The Yahoo source is referring to the script exclusively (With only one mention of Valum in the whole article), ScriptShadow doesn't seem to have a proper editorial team and is thus unreliable, LRMOnline seems reliable at a glance but is still almost exclusively covering the script as a whole, with Valum only a part of it, while CBR has no bearing on notability per WP:VALNET. The development is entirely about the script, with the Polygon source and the Collider source not even mentioning Valum. There's no evidence of this character having notability separate from the script. Additionally, the current uploaded image for Valum is a copyright violation, as it has been uploaded to the Commons with no attribution. Additionally, while it isn't an exact match (And Earwig won't let me check this myself) the plot summary in the article is highly similar to the summary found here: https://unpublished-villains.fandom.com/wiki/Tor_Valum in numerous areas, and appears to be at the bare minimum partial plagiarism. This article seems to fall afoul of multiple different issues. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Wars: Duel of the Fates - Not only non-notable in general, it seems from the little bit of coverage about him that he was not even a particularly major character in the unproduced script. Many of the sources being used here just very briefly mention the character while summarizing the leaked script, and several of them don't even mention the character at all, making this look like a case of WP:REFBOMBING. At best, this can just be redirected to the main article on the unproduced film, where he is already mentioned in the plot summary. Rorshacma (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. This can't be made into a substantial article with reliable sources, likely because it never had a public reception. Sometimes unreleased content can be WP:NOTABLE, but most of the time it isn't. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Wars: Duel of the Fates as there does not appear to be significant coverage about this character in reliable, third-party sources. I think a redirect would be preferable to outright deletion as this is a viable search term that readers could use. Aoba47 (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. The Development section doesn't even have any secondary sources that mention Tor Valum, just Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker Expanded Edition. hinnk (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canderous Ordo[edit]

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

Was changed from a redirect by a new user, simply not seeing any amount of standalone notability for this character whatsoever; in my opinion it fails GNG clearly and the redirect should be restored. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Additionally, the text in this article has several similarities to this article on Wookipedia and appears to run afoul of plagiarism and copyright violations as a result. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Wookipedia entries are Creative Commons, but it's not a good look for someone to come in and immediately just start copypasting articles regardless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the nominator. As for Pokelego's comment, this doesn't appear to be the first time the user has put plagiarized content on this site. λ NegativeMP1 23:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as what very little is actually cited to reliable secondary sources is insufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dracthyr[edit]

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

While the issue isn't one of conversation regarding the subject in the referenced media outlets, the problem is more one that the article's subject matter and reception is strictly within the scope of World of Warcraft: there is no indication of notability outside of that, discussion or examination. They are essentially less a fictional character race and more a gameplay mechanic that strictly matters within the context of the game itself. This is similar to how the previously AfD'd Gnasher Shotgun was strictly a gameplay element of Gears of War.

Attempts to try and find more sourcing proved fruitless, especially with Google Scholar. Additionally SUSTAINED is also a concern, as beyond the initial announcement the subsequent articles were in a short time span to each other. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not really sure how someone can look at the article and come out with ~~"there are no reliable sources"~~ "this lacks notability" besides a gross failure of WP:BEFORE. The Game Informer article, Polygon article, PC Gamer article, PCGamesN article and a 2nd Polygon article are all SIGCOV about the Dracthyr that easily exceed the threshold for GNG. As for the idea of "notability outside the scope of WoW", I'm not sure what policy this is trying to argue it violates; I suppose WP:INDISCRIMINATE? The article does discuss the "development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of the subject, and articles on fictional races are not uncommon. So how exactly is this different? It flummoxes me what the deletion rationale is here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am similarly flummoxed. Yes, a World of Warcraft race is discussed as part of World of Warcraft; being discussed in context is not a negative. Independent discussion on Google Scholar is unlikely, and not necessary to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @User:Zxcvbnm Zx there are many times I've tried to assume good faith with you, but at no point did I say "there are no reliable sources" or even imply that. You have been on a *really* bad tear with bad faith lately. As it stands the point was that the article's reception is discussing a *fictional* race strictly in the context of a gameplay element. Key word: fictional. The sources you thumped there are all within the same short time span, and all examine the subjet in the scope of a *gameplay* element. There is no discussion regarding design or examination of them as a race. This is no different than trying to do an article on a Pokemon and strictly focusing on how good or bad it was in terms of gameplay for its particular generation. Any other fictional race article still illustrates some reaction or examination beyond just the gameplay element. Additionally User:Toughpigs at no point did I ascertain Google Scholar was the only outlet, just one observation that even there there was nothing as scholarly works tend to be a go-to on this subject. The problem is not that it's discussed in the context of WoW, but that it is *only* discussed in that context and strictly a gameplay context. If you're going to oppose that's fine but don't mischaracterize my argument.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the argument they are only spoken of in gameplay terms is completely false; the last paragraph in the article argues the journalist's opinion that the Dracthyr were shoehorned into WoW's lore and story. I personally believe that specific discussion about their role in the story is not a necessary step to prove notability, but, even if it were, this would still pass by your very own criteria.

I do admit that was not exactly what I meant, but it was not meant in "bad faith". I will edit it to clarify with better wording. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That by itself is at least something, but it still feels hard to justify a stand alone article on the subject (and strengthens Pokelego's point about it being a more viable merge into a Dragonflight article). SIGCOV is just one aspect of an article, but the actual content of a discussion needs to be considered. I feel sometimes you rush to make sure you have sources just to satisfy perceived policy, but itself isn't the only deciding factor on an article. Case in point, the recent discussion about Ornstein and Smough. It's not just about meeting that WP:THREE threshold. The reader neeeds to understand the significance of this subject with no prior knowledge to WoW or gaming too.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with World of Warcraft: Dragonflight. Basically every source in the Reception section is discussing how the Dracthyr affected gameplay of the game, but there's no indication of notability aside from that. The Dracthyr are essentially just a gameplay mechanic. Outside of a brief snippet of PC Gamer in the first paragraph and the Polygon source in the last paragraph, none of the sources are showing any impact of the Dracthyr outside of the context of World of Warcraft, and simply show the impact of the expansion they were introduced in on gameplay of the game. It feels more logical to me this is covered at the Dragonflight article, since basically everything about the Dracthyr are in the context of Dragonflight. Someone curious about the Dracthyr's impact on the game are better off going to what actually changed the game, instead of a gameplay mechanic that is part of the expansion. I'm not opposed to this being split out if more sources proving notability separate from the expansion are found, but right now there's really not that much. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, there is literally commentary on how they impact the game's plot. The "just a gameplay mechanic" argument does not hold any water. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my vote, there is very little sourcing showing considerable impact. Just because there are two sources is not enough to separate the concept from the base expansion, and can easily be included in the Dragonflight article, where the bulk of this information is most relevant. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles being written on the race is in itself proof of outside impact, just as reviews of games are. Playing as the race has impacted someone enough to critique it. Suggesting that an article's subject must be discussed in a scholarly context to be viable as a standalone page is plain ridiculous and there is no policy like this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's inherently true. For example, Pokémon species routinely get articles about them, but we understand that as routine coverage, much like how we may consider it routine coverage to discuss the impact of a new race or class in an MMO. What outside impact is demonstrated in the sources? Every source is written in a comparatively short period of time, and they're all written in the context of how the Dracthyr impacts the expansion. Are there any articles that go outside the initial period the articles listed are written in? For an MMO, the notion that this race is discussed only in a seven-month period feels like it speaks little of its independent notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Pokelego999. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The sources seem to treat Dracthyr as a gameplay mechanic first and foremost, which is not compelling to me that this is a significant subject beyond significant as part of Dragonflight. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with World of Warcraft: Dragonflight: per above. C F A 💬 02:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's sourcing. The GNG is met, and arguments that this is a gameplay mechanic first and foremost aren't germane to whether it has garnered multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources. I'm not opposed to an editorial merge, and it's a far superior ATD to deletion, but such a merger should not be forced by AfD when the sourcing is sufficiently robust to support a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:MERGEREASON and WP:NOPAGE. Just because a subject might be notable doesn't mean it needs its own article unless it's truly holds its own, which this does not. Taking a read for it myself, it seems to require a proper understanding of World at Warcraft, which violates MOS:VG and could stray into fandom territory. I don't see why the material from this page couldn't be merged into World of Warcraft. λ NegativeMP1 16:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Press quotes about how good an in-game ability feels might belong in the reception about the game, at most. Even something like Mario jump doesn't have its own article, despite its mention in lots of sources. There is a clear merge target for this gameplay at World of Warcraft: Dragonflight, as an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Firefly (film series) characters[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN and CAT:UNREF for years. Possible redirect to TV series, but unsure merge is a good WP:ATD as this is all unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is completely unrelated to the TV series Firefly (TV series), so don't redirect there. Firefly (film series) doesn't exist anymore (speedied in April).– sgeureka ^t•c 10:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who items[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of objects from a television program, such as "Celery". A lot of this is WP:OR, both in the content, and the arbitrary way in which non-notable objects are selected for inclusion. Jontesta (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget items in the list and Delete list.

-Celery to Fifth Doctor

-Chameleon Circuit to TARDIS

-Hand of Omega to Remembrance of the Daleks

-A Journal of Impossible Things to Human Nature (Doctor Who)

-Key to Time to Doctor Who season 16

-Matrix to Gallifrey

-Delete severed hand due to lack of discernible name that can differentiate it from the concept of a severed hand

-Delete Squareness Gun due to being non-notable and lacking a redirect target (Maybe Jack Harkness?)

-Sonic Screwdriver has an article already

-Superphone lacks a redirect and not really an important concept, delete

-TARDIS has an article

-Time Scoop to The Five Doctors

Only objects I'm iffy on are Eye of Harmony, Psychic Paper, and Vortex Manipulator due to all three being important recurring elements in the series that lack a viable redirect. Maybe The Doctor (Doctor Who) for Psychic Paper, Gallifrey for Eye of Harmony, and Jack Harkness for Vortex Manipulator? I'm not sure.

Either way, this list is, per nom, very CRUFTy, and I've honestly been meaning to getting rid of it myself. I will note per nom that most of these objects are at least the recurring (Meaning they're not really "non-notable") but there definitely is a lack of inclusion criteria and not much showcasing the list needs to be a separate thing from the other viable redirect targets for most if not all of the entities. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Proposal of Pokelego999 looks good. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no discussion in the article about why the items as a group are notable. It is an indiscriminate list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm. The list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and the redirects can be pointed to new targets per Pokelego999. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a merge target of multiple NN other articles. The topic of the list is 'Doctor Who' not 'Doctor Who Items' so the topic is clearly notable, even though many of the individual elements are clearly not, which per WP:CSC is a textbook application: These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm - The couple of notable entries in this list already have their own individual articles, and the remainder are non-notable topics that are either poorly sourced or have no sources at all outside of Dr. Who itself. The overall topic of Dr. Who being notable does not mean that lists of random, vaguely related topics can't also fall under being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I have no objection to individual redirects being created, as suggested by Pokelego999. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE and redirect incoming per Pokelego999. This fails WP:LISTN as the topic of the article, despite assertions above, is actually "Doctor Who Items" as notability is not WP:NOTINHERITED. We are not a random collection of fictional minutia. This is particulaly true for lists of fictional items (e.g. Torchwood items, Once Upon a Time items, Metroid items, W.I.T.C.H. items, Harry Potter spells, Space: 1999 weapons, etc., etc.). The question that should be asked is has the group "Items in Doctor Who" been treated as a group in high quality RSs, to which I think the answer is no.Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, with no indication for importance. Let'srun (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of recurring Skins characters[edit]

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

A non-notable fork of List of Skins characters. We don't need more than one character list for this television show, and there isn't WP:SIGCOV for these unremarkable characters. Jontesta (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Skins characters. There is no need for two separate articles for main and recurring characters of a television show, when a combined article should suffice.⁂CountHacker (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Skins characters - Many of the reoccurring characters listed here that actually had any importance are actually already also covered at the main character article, making this a rather redundant spinout article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per CountHacker. We don't need two non-notable lists, and the first list can always be expanded if WP:RS are found. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batboat[edit]

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

This is WP:OR of a list of watercraft from batman comics. Even when you hone in on a discrete topic, it's sourced to angelfire. It has no independent reliable sources. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for any of these boats / submarines / scooters / etc. Jontesta (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Merge reliably independently cited content into another article if relevant. Most of this article is uncited, and most of it is trivia, and most of the cited content is not cited to independent WP:RS. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Video games, and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I agree that the article is mostly uncited, and that article mainly mentions its appearances. I feel the article should be taken back to draftspace, where it can be further researched-on and improved. It is notable, as anyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is. Right now, it definitely doesn't deserve mainspace. MK at your service. 12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"[A]nyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is" does NOT mean the topic is notable, particularly not per Wikipedia's notability standards for article subjects. Nor is the quoted statement true, since the boat certainly does not occur in every episode or every game, etc. Softlavender (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unlike the article on, say, the Batmobile, this article is not really about a single, coherent topic, and is just a list of a bunch of unrelated watercraft that various incarnations of Batman happened to use, relying almost entirely on non-reliable sources. If anyone suggests a viable Redirect target, I am fine with that as an ATD, but a Merge anywhere would be out of the question due to the poor quality of the sources being used. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~Delete~~ - per nom, is largely unsourced fancruft. Not particularly supportive of drafting, as I don't particularly think this is o r of those things more time will solve... Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revising stance. I still don't believe its a notable subject, but it is a plausible search term, and can easily be mentioned at Batman#Technology. I don't see any "size" issues because much of the contents of this article should not be mentioned there. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While the article is poorly written, the subject appears notable and received significant coverage in several independent books: Batman's Arsenal, Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight, Slashfilm(?) I think people underestimate how entrenched Batman is in popular culture. Due to the problems being seemingly WP:SURMOUNTABLE, refusal to improve an article is not a viable deletion argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm those two books seem to be plot summary to me. Additionally, the second book appears to be a primary source, while the first book appears to be an unauthorized encyclopedia that is not actually analyzing anything, and only giving plot details or summary information. The final source appears to be development info that doesn't contribute to showing independent notability, and is better off covered at Batman Forever. None of these show any independent coverage from the source. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "unauthorized" has no bearing on whether a source can be used - we are not a fan wiki. DK books are not primary; they are published by Dorling Kindersley, a known encyclopedia publisher. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, then, on misconstruing the books. I could've sworn at one point that "unauthorized" books were unable to be used, and I misread the publisher on the second. Either way, they're still only plot details and summaries of what it is with no real significant commentary. The sources don't really do much to show significant impact, especially since encyclopedias of various subjects are pretty standard fare in numerous big fandoms and often only give summary over commentary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do admit that, at least in this case, there doesn't seem to be commentary on the Batboat that would make it pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but it is clear that the WP:BEFORE here has come up wanting and needs more work. Hence, "weak keep" until someone decides to actually do an exhaustive search and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no external commentary on the impact or influence of the Batboat's existence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they aren't independent sources covering the Batboat in a context that would actually illustrate independent notability, then they aren't worth bringing up in the nomination and certainly wouldn't count in a BEFORE as being enough to salvage the article. If the sources you're using as an example of "the BEFORE not being done" are sources typically ignored in a BEFORE for not being significant coverage, then I'm not sure what your argument really is here. I can't speak on the nominator's BEFORE without them clarifying (To which I ask @Jontesta to clarify just in case) but if the target article isn't notable then it shouldn't be kept solely on the basis of a Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "sources must exist" argument. I have proven the article is notable beyond a doubt, whether it passes WP:NOT is still unclear, but the current deletion rationale has been totally negated at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How have your sources in any way proven notability? Even in the case of the nom's rationale being faulty, there's been nothing asserted by those sources in the way of actual real-world relevancy beyond having plot summary in two Batman encyclopedias, which cover all manner of Batman-related content, regardless of notability, and dev info for specific movies. There's no notability asserted that is independent of its parent franchise in a manner that requires a split from any other article. I don't believe the nom is wrong either, since, per a search, the only mentions of the Batboat I could was this and references to unrelated boats named after the Batboat that don't show notability in the slightest, and I can find nothing in Books or Scholar that isn't just more Batman encyclopedias or unrelated objects named Batboat. Batman's Batboat literally has nothing in the way of significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's a page of text about the development and construction of the '66 series' Batboat in Batman: A Celebration of the Classic TV Series, a non-fiction non-primary reference that I added to the article. Toughpigs (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While helpful and good information, there's still not much showing a significant real world notability, given that this is one source discussing one film's production, which can easily be shifted to the main article for the film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the technology section at Batman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- PRESERVE isn't an actual notability rationale. You need a rationale for preserving for it to be a valid stance. Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - My technology section at Batman claim is that it would be the only other place to mention the Batboat as some of Batman's other vehicles are already listed in that section. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology, where a reference to the Batboat exists referencing it as a variation of the Batmobile. There's no need for this non-notable subject to have a separate article, especially since there is no significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support this option if the article is not to be outright deleted. Softlavender (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that "technology of..." articles are almost always cruft, but I'd support this being merged if the tech section was split into a Technology of Batman article. It appears that a large amount of his gadgets and tech are rather notable, with at least a whole book having been written about them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it's certainly possible (Since at the bare minimum it meets LISTN with Batarang, Batsuit, Batmobile, Bat-Signal, and Batman's utility belt having articles, though I'm admittedly on the notability of some o these) but it will need more than the one book source to hold it up as an entire subject to justify the split off Batman, especially since most of these have articles already have them Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the book, I found an article here from reliable source GamesRadar+, and an article on tech and various superheroes that includes a lot of coverage for Batman, focusing on how he is a "powerless" superhero who mostly relies on tech. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's sourcing. Merging to Batman#Technology sounds like a recipe for SIZE issues, but is certainly a better ATD than outright deletion. Creating Technology of Batman as a WP:SS parent for the various articles seems like the superior way forward. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman#Technology as an alternative to deletion. If Technology of Batman is ever created with a mention of Batboat, it can be then redirected there. --Mika1h (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in Jericho (TV series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page is almost completely uncited and appears to copy aspects from a fan wiki. Without significant real world reception in reliable sources, this fails WP:PLOT and WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overly detailed plot minutia that runs afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are no viable sources being used, and despite the "Keep" arguments in the previous AFD in 2009, this is not, and never was, a proper topic for a spinout article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the top map to Jericho (2006 TV series)#First season for illustrative purposes, the rest is (I agree) excessive in-universe minutiae without relevance for the real-world. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article isn't important enough for an encyclopedia because it looks like fan trivia and doesn't have independent sources to back it up. It doesn’t bring notability and verifiability. So I think deleting will be a good way. Yakov-kobi (talk) 18:10, 05 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page's material is far better suited for a Jericho Wiki than Wikipedia itself. TH1980 (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. The image can be preserved, per Sgeureka, and included at a related article. What to do with the file is a separate discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Balsamo[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Possible merge/redirect to Arsene Lupin or Maurice Leblanc, but not sure which. All information is unsourced too, so I am not sure it would be a valuable merge. Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Scholar finds this book about Hayao Miyazaki's earlier works, which included one film adaptation of Lupin. I don't see an obvious way to access that work and see whether substantial coverage of this character might be present. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like there is a viewable preview of that book here. The coverage of the character in it is extremely minimal - basically mentioning her when describing the plot of the original story that The Castle of Cagliostro was loosely adapted from. Rorshacma (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for confirming that. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arsène Lupin#Overview, where she is briefly mentioned. The current article is completely unsourced, and searching is not bringing up anything but brief mentions in plot summaries, such as in the book discussed above. Since there is no "character list" for the Lupin series, and the original story she appeared in does not seem to have its own article, redirecting to the main page where she is briefly mentioned appears to be the best viable target. Rorshacma (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arsène Lupin#Overview per Rorshacma. This doesn't have enough sources but it is at least verifiable, with a valid redirect target, per WP:V. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex (Supergirl)[edit]

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

Only one entry, Alex Danvers, has a standalone article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Disambiguations, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dab not needed per WP:ONEOTHER. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Alex Danvers. It's hard to add a disambig hatnote to a table (list of episodes, as the other meaning is an tv show episode). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are clearly two topics that could be this entry. Having this lead to a disambiguation page prevents accidental links from happening as bots notify users when adding these. There is zero upsides to deleting or redirecting this. Gonnym (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not a case of WP:ONEOTHER as there is no clear main topic. Broc (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as there is as the episodes title is clearly referencing the character. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two topics. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Disambiguation page only links to one article, the other is just an article where the second subject is mentioned. —Mjks28 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The standalone article should be primary, with a hatnote being used to direct readers to the other Alex, who is only mentioned in the article body. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Danvers and add hatnote to season page per WP:TWODABS/WP:SIMILAR/WP:ONEOTHER. Primary topic with only one other topic that isn't stand-alone article-worthy. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Danvers. I've added coverage of the first topic (the episode "Alex") to the second topic (Alex Danvers).[1] There is a redirect (Alex (Supergirl episode)) that could be used for a hatnote on Alex Danvers#Season 2. I wasn't sure if it was okay to do a see also for a redirect, but it makes sense here. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Danvers. The article now has information about the episode "Alex." This two-item disambiguation page serves no useful purpose. If not redirect, then simply delete. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alex Danvers. The only two topics are the character (who has a standalone article) and a TV show episode named after that character (which does not have a standalone article). A hatnote is definitely sufficient for dealing with the small number of people who would want to go to the list entry about the episode. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, again. Arguments are almost evenly divided between those wanting to Keep the page and those advocating a Redirect (with a few Delete opinions mixed in). So, we need some more policy-based arguments or some participants reconsidering their "votes". No consensus closures tend to make all sides dissatisfied so that is the last resort if nothing changes here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alex Danvers with hatnote per Quicole above. As has been mentioned, the episode is stand-alone and is referencing the character regardless.

JoeJShmo^💌 08:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Gonnym, Shhhnotsoloud, and Broc: Since you all have voted, the article Alex Danvers now includes a hatnote and cited content linking to the episode here: Alex Danvers#Season 2 @Mjks28 and Jclemens: Would you all be okay with a redirect per WP:RKEEP point 3, "They aid searches on certain terms.", as "Alex supergirl" is a plausible search for "Alex Danvers"? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear how this responds to my concern. An editor using the link Alex (Supergirl) for the episode now gets a warning they added a disambiguation link to an article. If this changes to a redirect to the character, it won't happen and it might not be fixed. How is changing this to a redirect helpful? Gonnym (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think deletion is the right choice. If the "Alex" episode had its own article it would be a different matter, but as there is no article for it, having a disambiguation page wouldn't be helpful. -- Mjks28 (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with turning the dab into a redirect if we agree there's a PRIMARYTOPIC. Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evil-Lyn[edit]

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

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 14:53, 20 June 2024 (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 Comics and animation. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 14:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be enough sourcing, and the nomination statement doesn't engage with what there is. There are multiple CBR references, but there appear to be enough RS to meet GNG, and the burden of BEFORE is on the nominator to show how what's already in the article does not. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this just me; but its only a 2 low quality situational Valnet sources [2] [3] in the article + this source from before and for me it isn't enough yet for GNG, due to the source quality. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 20:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:VALNET, which is also cited at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Valnet sources do not contribute to notability in discussions such as these. As all of these are VALNET, there is no notability displayed right now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no less than five non-Valnet online sources and one magazine source listed. The above does not constitute a source analysis. Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-The Los Angeles Times source is merely a one sentence mention of Linda Gary voicing her. Same deal for the Polygon source, except with a different VA.

-The San Francisco Chronicle source is a plot summary overview of her character

-The MTV Link is broken, so I cannot view it. I cannot view the SFX sources either.

-The HashtagTV source doesn't seem to even mention her? The source also doesn't seem reliable, and even then is only verifying that she'll appear in an upcoming production.

There's not even commentary or dev info here- at best there's two sources verifying VAs, which is not enough to pass the GNG bar. Nom seems to have done a BEFORE, and a brief BEFORE didn't yield much for me, either. Do note if I've missed anything, but this seems to be a rather minor character with very little additional sourcing to back up any substance. Ref count is not equal to notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the MTV link so it works. https://www.mtv.com/news/jat6pt/masters-of-the-universe-classics-faceless-one-review Each to search for the title of something and the name of the source to find it. Dream Focus 09:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but MTV link is broken again; all links to mtv.com archives seem intentionally broken, but wayback may have a copy of it. Regardless, the SFX source has still not been dealt with. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. I don't have the time to go through and search for sources myself to form an opinion on notability, but this is the obvious WP:Alternative to deletion which preserves the article in the history for possible future use and I am pretty sure something from here can improve the corresponding section at the target. Daranios (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is definitely in a pretty bad state, but Evil-Lyn is one of the most significant characters in the franchise. Given the presence of MOTU: Revelation, a couple of sources do exist pertaining to Lena Headey's portrayal of the character; interviews and reviews. From some research I've done, although critics from the 1980s don't seem to bring up Meg Foster often when discussing the live-action film, retrospective reviews do somewhat often single her out for praise. The article itself may not show it, but sources and coverage of Evil-Lyn do exist.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I don't know what I should respond to this. This looks like WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument somehow. Interview sources are primary and does not help GNG; same with Valnet sources. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 00:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, interviews count as primary. Additionally, could you please cite some of these sources you're referring to? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews may count as primary, but depending on the other/surrounding writeup may well count as independent RSes contributing to notability. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can an interview be primary for a fictional character? Were they interviewing Evil-Lyn in character on some in-universe interview show? I would think that only the show itself is a primary source for the show. BD2412 T 00:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claims of @Jclemens: and @PanagiotisZois:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters as stated by user:Daranios. Significant coverage only comes from CBR, a questionable source according to WP:VALNET, and the wikis for He-Man MOTU, but these are tertiary sources that either do not cite references or just makes circular references to articles within that wiki. Not notable for a separate article at this time.Prof.PMarini (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Merge and Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the few sourced sentences to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Evil-Lyn, which already seems pretty balanced. Real-world info on animated characters will be quite hard to come by, so better develop this in the character list until it potentially hits WP:SPINOUT quality. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing is just about sufficient. Cortador (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the character list for now due to lack of sourcing and a clear WP:ATD. No objection to a spin-out later if enough sources are found to rewrite the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as WP:ATD. I am (in good faith) baffled by the claims there are sufficient sources. An interview quote from an actress, or a listicle about multiple He-Man characters are examples of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. Plus, there is a consensus CBR and other valnet sources are questionable, and only usable in narrow situations. There is very little to WP:PRESERVE but a merge will create compromise and WP:CONSENSUS, instead of a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions[edit]

no articles proposed for deletion at this time