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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of The West Wing characters. There is also a suggestion to redirect to The West Wing#Main_characters, a possible change of target can be discussed on the article's talk page. There appears to be disagreement about whether or not there is content to be merged, so I have left the current content in the article history for possible merging. Randykitty (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Santos

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

As in several recent AfD's, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiet Council of Krakoa, does not meet WP:GNG, please see WP:NOTPLOT. Was redirected several times, which is probably the best outcome, but an editor insists on reverting the redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject passes GNG, which is the pertinent notability policy for fictional characters, per discussion of subject in secondary sources cited in article, e.g. see Politico and The Guardian. The character's biography is inherently related to plot descriptions, and excessive plot descriptions can be cleaned up without redirecting the entire article. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or redirect. Politico article is very short (three paragraphs), classified as a blog and mentions the subject in 3 sentences. I am not sure it qualifies as WP:SIGCOV. The Guardian coverage is a bit better, although I am not seeing that much analysis there. But that's still is a bit short of two good, in-depth sources. Possibly more sources exist but they haven't been found; my BEFORe showed some mentions in passing in academic sources and a possibly in-depth coverage in a Spanish book chapter ([1]?) that I cannot access to verify so it cannot be assumed to be in-depth until someone actually reads it). In the current state the article is pure plotfancruft, and if it is not improved, I suggest redirecting this to the List of The West Wing characters for failing WP:NOTPLOT, with no prejudice to restoring this at any point if someone adds a reception/analysis section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and clean-up. A lot of this is WP:OR and unsourced. The other sources are unreliable or short. It might make sense to write a summary paragraph and merge it to the list of characters, and improve that list. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is currently no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect, I would have said merge but there's nothing to merge. The problem with this article is that instead of discussing Santos as a character, it treats him as a real-life personage and simply presents an enormous biography and plot summary. If you compare to the Guardian article you will see the difference: the Guardian article looks at the relevance of Santos as a mirror to real politics, comparing him to Obama and discussing the scriptwriter's intentions. Had the article's author found a few more sources like the Guardian, and written about the character's meaning from outside, instead of writing as though we were all in the character's universe, we'd have an article, and not a piece of fan-cruft. I'd have no prejudice against someone doing the job properly, if further sources emerge, but until then: TNT. Elemimele (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As mentioned by Elemimele above, there isn't much to merge that is sourced or written in an out-of-universe style. Joyous! | Talk 22:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What a destructive proposal. There was a tremendous amount of published critical commentary about the Santos character, in newspapers and magazines, during the TV series's final years. The fact that Google does a terrible job of indexing them doesn't vitiate it's existence. A Google Books search shows the existence of more than enough critical commentary to sustain the article, even if the complete texts are not consistently on line. This enterprise of reducing Wikipedia to subjects which are easy to research on line is painfully foolish, and should be discouraged. Vivian 166.159.85.90 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you would actually link to the sources you found, your argument could carry some weight. Right now it's just WP:THEREARESOURCES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge There is some coverage on google books, but not enough to sustain a separate article. There is certainly enough material to cover this character somewhere, per WP:ATD. Archrogue (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm assuming that List of The West Wing characters is the proposed Merge/Redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The West Wing#Main characters. There isn't much sourced to merge but the few sources can be used to source what little is there in the main character list. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) for a dedicated article. czar 16:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Warhammer 40,000#T'au. ✗plicit 14:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

T'au Empire

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

This is a lengthy plot summary with some comments about related miniature games, but the topic sadly seems to fail WP:GNG. The few references cited (note the article is mostly unreferenced, with much WP:OR to be concerned about) are not independent and come from game books, fan of semi-official blogs or in one case, the White Dwarf magazine published by the same company that publishes the game. BEFORE shows any how-to-play (or paint, or mod) guides for this factin, but nothing that suggests the faction is notable outside of the game. The best WP:ATD I can suggest would be merging some referenced content to Warhammer_40,000#T'au (a section which appears unreferenced). I'll end by saying similar merge and redirects have been done to a number of other WH40K factions (ex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eldar (Warhammer 40,000), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necron (Warhammer 40,000)) and arguably should be done for the remainder. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main WH40K article, just unnecessary plotcruft. Dronebogus (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Warhammer 40,000#T'au. The sources I could find are all about the wider Warhammer 40,000 IP and this article's subject is discussed as an aspect of that wider subject, such as reviews of their specific Codex (rulebook) or the faction being included in games. I'm very familiar with 40K and there are wikis like Lexicanum that go into more in-universe detail than would be appropriate at Wikipedia (T'au Empire and T'au) so there are already websites where this level of cruft is appropriate and appreciated, but per Wikipedia's notability guidelines it doesn't warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. BOZ (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Topic seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:OR. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Borat with the option of merging well-sourced content. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azamat Bagatov

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

A year ago I tagged Azamat Bagatov as failing notability. Nobody has improved and a WP:PROD was removed. I tried my best just now to expand that article, adding a reception section, but I don't think there is enough out there to warrant keeping this. I did propose a merge but with 4 votes to merge and 2 to keep at Talk:Borat it was eventually declined. Given that, I think we need a trial by fire here. I think the 'analysis and reception' section I wrote could be merged (note it is not even about the character as much as about one popular scene that he shares with the main character anwyay); nothing else seems useful (plot summary already exists in the movie article). The sentence about why the actor refused to play in the sequel could be merged there (I note that there is a different explanation in the sequel than the one we have here). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Kazakhstan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the relist and no comments I'll ping registered editors who participated in the merge discussion: @Wretchskull, Chariotsacha, DKSN123, TheTrainCrazyMan, The helper5667, and Levi OP: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first three citations include enough coverage that makes me think notability has been established. CT55555(talk) 05:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first three citations - that includes the Youtube clip ""Ali G + Borat - Dog Contest ( Super Funny )", currently #3 in the article? :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since my comment, I think someone has added one in third place, so right now, I'm taking about citations 1, 2 & 4. CT55555(talk) 04:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The sources seem more about the actor, and/or are interviews with the actor about the role. It's all very ONEVENTish/PRIMARY (INTERVIEW)/plot summarish. And in the end it's mostly about the "wrestling match between butt-naked men" scene. One scene does not make a character notable, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't think the WP:GNG is met. The reception focuses on a scene from the movie and that would be an appropriate merge target. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Borat. Not enough sources to warrant keeping this by itself. The little sources that are about it are really about Borat and not about the minor character. --Jamarast (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Twelve (comics). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Wonder (Timely Comics)

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

Minor comic book character that seems to fail WP:GNG. BEFORE didn't reveal anything substantial, just a few mentions in passing, the article is a pure plot summary+publication history, with no reception or analysis. The best WP:ATD I can think of is redirecting this to The Twelve (comics). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 1 January 2023 (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} 03:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Twelve (comics) comics as an WP:ATD

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:ATD. Does not seem to pass the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus was keep (non-admin closure) `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 01:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talamasca

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

Seems like a minor plot element, failing WP:GNG (SIGCOV). I can't even suggest a reasonable WP:ATD to redirect this to. The article is a pure plot summary, and its only redeeming quality is that it's referenced, but mentions in passing don't suffice to show notability. PS. Was prodded by User:Avilich , prod was removed by User:Spinningspark with "has entries in horror encyclopaedias". But the entry in The Vampire Book: The Encyclopedia of the Undead, despite being two pages long, seems to be a pure plot summary, and that fails WP:NOTPLOT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 31 December 2022 (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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom statement is defective in that RS'es cannot fail WP:NOTPLOT as it only applies to how Wikipedia writes about fictional topics, not how our sources do. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could the brief contents of the article be merged into another? Hellbus (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hellbus Possibly, but what we have is a tiny amount of plot summary from several books that effectively amounts to "this fictional organization appears in book A, B, C". Is this even worth merging? The organization is presumably mentioned in the plot summaries of those books anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Hellbus that discussion of plot in reliable sources is not the same as a Wikipedia editor's plot summary of the source work. The former adds to notability, the latter does not. The former tells us which plot elements reliable sources believe are significant. If that was all we had, that would still justify inclusion in Wikipedia (in some form), but when I deprodded the article I had much more to say on this than the nom's quote of my short edit summary would lead one to believe. I named a number of sources from which out-of-universe discussion can be extracted. You have to look for it, but it is there. Here are two quotes;

Together with Maharet's tapestry and the matrilineal family tree, the Talamasca provides a lineage, a coherent mythology,...
— Linda Badley, Writing Horror and the Body

In one sense or another, there are a number of anthropologists in the Mayfair trilogy. I wish to concentrate briefly , however, on the Talamasca, Ashlar, and Rowan Mayfair. These three provide sufficient examples to establish Rice's anthropological sensibility.
— Gary G. Roberts, The Gothic World of Anne Rice

SpinningSpark 13:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Almost all consensus was to keep this article. (non-admin closure) `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 15:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krakoa

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

Just a lot of fancruft. Article does not indicate that this is a notable element of the comic books. Zero in-depth coverage to show any real-world notability. Everything is in-universe. User:Nekivik^{TT me} 10:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. ^{TT me} 11:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current article is really bad, but as shown at the last AfD, independent sources do exist that discuss Krakoa in a real-world context (e.g., The Mutant Land: How the Island Krakoa Dictates the Mutant Society in House of X and Representations of Israel, literal and allegorical, in X-Men comics), so the subject is notable. OliveYouBean (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the results of the last AFD, there is sufficient sourcing to show it as notable. BOZ (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: K because then the information will not be deleted if someone want to edit with references in distant future. Notable sources that pass the minimum standards of GNG in last Afd were to be used on this page. Those sources aren't added in this page till date. While the references are almost same as during first Afd. Unless those sources showing real-world notability are being added, the page is still not notable.

Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of WP:N is that the sources just have to exist for the subject to be notable, not that they have to be currently used in the article. At WP:ARTN it says Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. (emphasis mine) So even if the sources aren't used in the article, it is still notable and the page should still be kept. OliveYouBean (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

This page clearly fails WP:NOTPLOT: Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia does treat works of fiction in an encylopedic manner. That means if the sources exist to be able to do this, the subject should get an article. The sources exist to be able to do this (I linked a couple in my vote), so the subject passes WP:N and should have an article. Notability is about the subject, not the article. OliveYouBean (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OliveYouBean I was pointing that page fails WP:NOTPLOT, one of the main reasons for getting deleted as per WP:DEL-REASON. See instruction page for 14th point of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Only one above-mentioned source is reliable. Just existing in-world notability sources doesn't mean it is always reliable. According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable; so Representations of Israel, literal and allegorical, in X-Men comics fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The journal uses a double-blind peer review process for all submissions. Taylor & Francis Online is a reliable repository that would not lie about that. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: K per my rationale in the prior AfD, which can be summarized as: yes, this is potentially notable. No, the article does not show this. This is currently fancruft and should be just a redirect, until someone actually bothers to read the sources found and write a section about reception or analysis. I'd be happy to vote keep when that happens. Until that happens, this does not meet WP:NOTPLOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article's subject meets WP:GNG. Nothing has changed since the previous AfD in terms of notability in that regard. The article may need work, but deletion is not cleanup. I'm also concerned about how certain editors were notified of this discussion, as only those who have suggested not keeping the article previously seem to have been notified. They notified the previous AfD's nom and notified the only other active editor who suggested something other than to keep at the previous AfD, and skipped over the seven editors who suggested keeping the article. They also notified an editor who suggested redirecting a similar article and made a similar argument about the state of this article as the nom. I'm not saying it was done maliciously or in bad faith but if we're going to individually notify editors of an AfD, it shouldn't only be those who would be likely to agree with you. - Aoidh (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That being the case, I'd say it's fair to ping @Jc37, @Rtkat3, @Haleth, @Jackattack1597, @Daranios, @Qwaiiplayer, and @Rhino131 from the last AFD as well as its closer @4meter4 to see if they maintain their opinions from 15 months ago, or have anything new to add. Additionally, I noticed something weird in this AFD, where the nominator edited a comment by another user which I reverted, then they did it again but self-reverted, which is odd enough, but then the user whose comments were edited changed it back to what the nominator had done, so I'm not exactly sure what that means but it is unusual. BOZ (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this before because they tried to ping me while editing someone else's message, which just seemed... bizarre? Since then things have become (in my opinion) weirder. They went on a spree of notifying users about this AfD, then promptly retired due to "limited knowledge of various wikipedia rules and processes". I have no idea what that's about. I hope they weren't discouraged by people's messages at their talk page. OliveYouBean (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ I am not sure why I was pinged to this discussion. I did not offer an opinion in the first or second AFDs. I was the neutral closer of the 2nd AFD which I closed as keep because there were no votes for deletion in the 2nd nomination other than the nominator. Consensus in that discussion was clearly to keep the article. I have no opinion on this particular topic. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since there were plenty of sources to establish N for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiet Council of Krakoa, it follows logically that those also establish notability for the parent topic. Both editors in favor of redirection admit that regular editing could fix any current problems with the page... so there's really no case for deletion at all. Jclemens (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD for Quiet Council resulted in a merge/redirect to Krakoa. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the previous discussions already noted; per Jclemens, above, who I think said it better than I could've; per everyone else on this page; and really per common sense. Sigh. Maybe we need to take another look at how subjective GNG is, if we're going to continually see it merely being repeatedly used as code for WP:IDONTLIKEIT... - jc37 12:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me the argumentation for deletion is again based on the current state of the article, which is explicitely not decisive according to WP:NEXIST. It has been shown in this and previous deletion discussions that secondary sources exist to establish notability. The way to solve the problem with too much plot summary is therefore not deletion but improvement with the help of these sources. There is no deadline for such improvements, and no specific Wikipedian is required to do anything, but as usual I'd expect those most offended by the current imperfect state of the article to be the first ones to take action for improvement. Daranios (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims as last time and the claims of @OliveYouBean:, @BOZ:, @Aoidh:, @Jclemens:, @Jc37:, and @Daranios:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous discussion and I agree with the above conversation that the argument for this deletion is not particularly strong. Deletion is not cleanup after all. Aoba47 (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time