Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:34, 25 April 2024

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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Fictional elements.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C.I.D. Investigators

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

No refs on the page for many years and WP:NOTPLOT. Could redirect to List of Catch-22 characters as AtD JMWt (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTPLOT and WP:SIGCOV both apply if this hasn't earned enough reception in reliable independent sources. Older books like this can sometimes have hidden coverage deep in other print sources, but WP:BEFORE indicates there isn't enough to separate this topic from the main book article. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage. Neocorelight (Talk) 06:43, 1 May 2024 (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.

David Xanatos

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE shows that most of the sources were from the film, except this [1]. But, that is not enough for the character. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 04:19, 24 April 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 Television. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 04:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic does not need to be the main subject to "count" with regard to notability. In my view, the mentioned Polygon article, this IGN article and the appearance in The Tropes of Fantasy Fiction, together with briefer appearances like here, establish enough material and commentary to fulfill the requirements of WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT, and therefore establish notability. Daranios (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Despite the existence of a great Polygon article for SIGCOV, the character doesn't pass GNG with the demonstrated sources. A compromise would be merging him to a list of characters. The trope of Xanatos Gambit is purely a TVTropes thing and isn't super well-known outside of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: If the trope of Xanatos Gambit is purely a TVTropes thing, then why does it appear in secondary sources, including academic ones? Daranios (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing and getting heavy discussion are two different things. But if the trope is indeed discussed heavily in scholarly sources, it might merit an article on the trope itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think it's "discussed heavyly", but it is discussed to some degree. Which again is different from being purely a TVTropes thing in my view. So I think it would be quite fitting to include the trope to a degree within the article here, which in turn means there is enough material to constitute a non-stubby article. Daranios (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting yet but concurring with Daranios here. If the concept is receiving actual discussion then it is a valid topic to cover in the article, regardless of potential origin. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep, per Daranios. DrBat (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. WP:SNOW keep, withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Hershel Layton

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

I tried to do WP:BEFORE, but it seems like this is the only sigcov [2] for this character. Meanwhile, others were just from game reviews with the same name, including the current sources used in the receptions section. Unfortunately, we need more to pass WP:GNG threshold. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Video games. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I almost immediately found this source talking about Layton's name being an unusual one for a protagonist, the use of his name as a title (which they identified as a relative rarity in modern games), and how he differs from a typical protagonist. This doesn't fulfill WP:THREE, but just from that quick search and the source provided, I strongly believe that any deeper search would come up with more. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the Eurogamer article Greenish Picke! linked and the Siliconera article that Cukie Gherkin found, Tablet has an article, "The Summer's Hottest Video Game Is About a Scholar Named Hershel", that foregrounds coverage of the character over the video game, particularly how being named "Hershel" makes the character a distinctly Jewish gentleman. "Three best sources" is an essay rather than a guideline or policy, but for what it's worth this demonstrates there are three solid sources for the character's notability. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe the Eurogamer, Siliconera, and Tablet sources puts us at WP:THREE. Could definite use a trim of the in-universe story appearances stuff, and an expansion of the reception with these sources, but overall that's clean up stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe the sources presented demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I believed the 3 sources above should be enough. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:21, 24 April 2024 (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 Nelson Lee Library. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Night Hawk (comics)

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

I initially WP:PRODed this article with the following rationale: "Non-notable fictional character. None of the current references are reliable, secondary sources. Searches just turned up very trivial mentions - no significant coverage in reliable sources." It was later de-prodded, with the suggestion that a full discussion should be held due to the subject being a pre-internet subject, so I am bringing it to AFD. To give further details on my WP:BEFORE results, the only results I was able to find in actual reliable sources were extremely brief, usually just a sentence or two stating "An early example of this kind of character was Night Hawk" and that's about it, such as these two books. Rorshacma (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and United Kingdom. Rorshacma (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect/merge to the The Nelson Lee Library seems more sensible than deletion. I'm assuming you've checked the physical media covering British story papers, like Book & Magazine Collector, Boys Will Be Boys, etc., etc. rather than just using Google. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Couldn't find WP:SIGCOV. Would support a redirect if people can agree on a valid target. But it's an unlikely search term and deletion is also fine. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Nelson Lee Library, agreeing with BoomboxTestarossa. We do have the mentioned secondary sources, which should count for something, but does not seem enough to be to establish stand-alone notability (I cannot see The British Superhero, p. 41, myself). So merge as WP:AtD. Daranios (talk)
Merge to The Nelson Lee Library as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Nelson Lee Library absolutely Sansbarry (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Nelson Lee Library.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2024 (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. WP:SNOW keep, there is now overwhelming consensus that it is notable. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koopa Troopa

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

The Reception section for this article at present is incredibly small, and per a BEFORE search, I found practically nothing else on these guys. A lot of sources mention them in brief, but there is very little actual commentary on them in these sources. As it stands now, I seriously doubt that the Koopa Troopas have enough sources to build an article. I'd suggest a redirect to the Mario characters list as an AtD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the detailed and well sourced concept and creation section, which shows the characters impact on the franchise. As I've reminded many times before, reception sections are not the only way to proving notability. A common way, but not the only. Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't looked into additional sources myself enough to give a recommendation at this point, but I just wanted to point out that all but one source in the Concept and Creation section are primary sources - they are all just from the "Iwata Asks" series on official Nintendo websites. And per the WP:GNG, in order to be able to help establish notability, sources need to be "independent of the subject". Rorshacma (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Mario franchise characters#Enemy characters - even if notable it clearly fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE with a very lacking reception that feels incredibly stretched-out. No prejudice towards recreation if someone manages to find more reception. IMO there is very little difference with the issues that led Boo (character) to also be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to understand how INDISCRIMINATE applies to this. Can you better explain? Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It lacks any reception besides one IGN list entry. The "Passionfruit" site is dubiously notable, and the rest belongs in Legacy not Reception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's...not what INDISCRIMINATE itself refers to. None of its points apply to this. And Passionfruit is part of The Daily Dot, which is reliable per WP:VG/S Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I will change my opinion to keep since things seem to be going in that direction. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, I just wasn't really sure about its current state. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Serge's rationale. I don't really feel I can add on more from that though. Captain Galaxy 16:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recently, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ made an argument about another article list that "if I had known merging would have cut down this much information I wouldn't have voted to merge". That stuck with me, and I feel that is more a valid concern here. There is clearly a lot of development and legacy information in this article and how it impacted the development of the series, and when you look at the list itself there is no feasible way to maintain this information over there (the enemy sections are all short and brief), and trying to brute force it in will create a weird instance of WP:UNDUE when you compare it to how the rest of the sections are structured given there's not the same level of development info for those other enemies. One could argue too for a "death by 1000 cuts" approach: is it possible to illustrate a character is so recognizable that its notable regardless of a lack of discussion?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Sergecross's statement. I do think that the Koopa Troopa deserve their own page, mainly because they've been in the franchise (almost) since the start. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find what Kung Fu Man said compelling - often, merging can be fairly destructive, and in this case, I find it difficult to see a reasonable happy middleground between giving Koopa Troopa's dev info and impact too little or too much weight on the list. While there definitely should be more info on the article, the sheer amount of info that would be lost in the merge makes it feel like no one would actually benefit. To me, I feel like we sometimes treat "having an article" as a status. Would a reader benefit from having Koopa Troopa info either dominating the enemies list or simply being absent? It's important that we don't let such a concept be used to justify the splitting of articles with hardly anything to them, but this clearly has something that's lost in a merge. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's valid concerns made over just merging as Koopa Troopas have significantly more references detailing them than say, a Podoboo (or most Super Mario enemies for the matter). Plus, the current article is honestly fine as it is with the only problem being the reference formatting for some of the last few references used but otherwise, another instance of WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source discussion above. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:01, 25 April 2024 (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. Closing as keep per HEY. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Green (Hollyoaks)

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

Lacking in sources since 2007, article only has two sources. One of the sources is WP:PRIMARY, so the article essentially has one source for proving notability. Nothing found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. (Oinkers42) (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hollyoaks characters; otherwise, this may clearly be Fandom territory. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Unless the reception is expanded and/or analysis section added, this is a clear WP:GNG failure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Noted Slgrandson and Piotrus' concerns - I will address them and work on the article.Rain the 1 10:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have made steady progress with the expansion so far. I have found a bunch of other sources from the archives that I will use to continue improving the article further over the coming days.Rain the 1 21:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:HEY. RT1 has worked hard in massively improving and sourcing the article. There is now in depth development and reception and multiple sources showing notability and in depth coverage. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that Raintheone has made significant improvements to the article. Keep per WP:HEY. Toughpigs (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As User:Toughpigs said above, significant improvements have been made and I think the article passes WP:GNG. – JuneGloom07 Talk 21:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have been working on the article since the nomination to address the concerns mentioned above. Given what I have added, the time of nomination vs now - I think there is enough sourced content for an article. There is real world content concerning casting, character creation, characterisation, plots with real world coverage, her role within the show is explained and reception has been added. Per WP:HEY it does not match the nominators reasons for deletion, it passes WP:GNG and I have used various sources meeting WP:SIGCOV. I feel keeping is the better decision here.Rain the 1 17:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:40, 27 April 2024 (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.

Ultraman Tregear

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

Most of it were just primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AfD'ing it to end the edit war. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:46, 19 April 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 Television. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reject: you have no reason to delete this article!! Harimua Thailand (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:1566:1FAC:A05C:22B9 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harimua Thailand: We need coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (in this case, Ultraman) to have an article. This article has none of that, and should therefore be deleted. Characters as popular as King Dedede have been redirected for this reason. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except King Dedede is a different topic entirely and have some decent sources unlike this one (Full of primary sources).The Worst part is, there are other 3 Ultraman articles that are all sourced as primary. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 00:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, I was using him as an example of how notability is not popularity or being a well-liked character. The fact that he is in a better position than this character helps my point. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is literally no reception in reliable sources either in this article or on the web, so it does not meet GNG. If there is a good redirect target available, redirect it there. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reject:~~ Redirect is not allowed and the article must be keep!! Harimua Thailand (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:6938:8399:70DC:2892 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made the article, you have serious bias ^48JCLTalk 00:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harimua Thailand: You can only make 1 bolded vote per AFD. If you want to make another one, you must strike the old one. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are people allowed to vote twice? Cooper (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was about to say redirect but if you search by the Japanese name, ウルトラマントレギア, a lot more sourcing comes up. Cooper (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entry on Japanese Wikipedia. Cooper (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its a primary source. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick searches brought me these two. Cooper (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable. See WP:RS, if there's a reliable source then it helps GNG. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it's unreliable? Just because you aren't familiar with a website doesn't make it unreliable. I'm not familiar with those website either, but both of those websites are used dozens to hundreds of times on Wikipedia. And they look fine to me. Cooper (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they are not unreliable, but a situational source. Then it couldn't even help WP:GNG. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG says that reliable "sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." Let's not discriminate Japanese media. Cooper (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even proven as a reliable source. But, lets drop this and move on since we have different perspective. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like you're just trying to deny that any source is valid, for whatever reason occurs to you at the moment. I don't think there is such a thing as a "situational source". Toughpigs (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because its just a reveal source. For the character it says only about this "Among the many Ultraman, Ultraman Taro is the one for whom I feel a powerful, powerful affinity" thats it. But, I don't see any point of making this discussion much longer. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what is a "reveal source"? Cooper (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I meant that the source is a Character reveal only. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Situational sources have been a thing on the site for a long time. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing this? Thing is, "situational" seems to mean there can be red flags in some sources that would normally be reliable, like if they were writing about something out of the usual scope. I don't think that applies here. Coop (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Situational is generally accepted to mean "use with caution" and typically means that it is unacceptable in some areas and fine in others. Some situational sources have been marked as fine for proving facts but unacceptable for proving notability. This does not apply to all situational sources, but keep in mind that you need to be careful with that kind of source. No comment on the individual links at this time since I don't speak Japanese. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do we tell if a source is situational though? It felt like Greenish Pickle! was just casting their own opinion. Coop (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to cast votes, but if the consensus brings to delete, I would like to suggest an alternative by redirecting Ultraman Tregear to List of Ultraman Taiga characters. I can compress and salvage whatever remains from this page to their appropriate articles. Zero stylinx (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do editors think of the suggestion of redirection? Please remember not to bludgeon an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Ultraman Taiga characters as a fair alternative to deletion. Jontesta (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The general notability guideline can be met with non-English sources and with sources available in print rather than in digital. Coverage of the character appears in volumes 164, 171, and 172 of Uchusen, a long-running Japanese periodical about media and tokusatsu. There is also coverage in volumes 256, 265, and 273 of Figya Kingu (Figure King), a Japanese periodical about figurines and toys. Add to this the Tokusatsu Network coverage in English that Cooper found further up in the discussion.
If there is a dispute about sourcing or content in the article, that's something to resolve through means other than AfD. Consider reporting editors to WP:AN/EW rather than AfD'ing it to end the edit war. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus after the previous two.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of Ultraman Taiga characters: Fails GNG. Sources show the subject exists, they do not have WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth from neutral non-promotional reliable sources addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE including a search for ウルトラマントレギア found primary sources, name mentions, nothing meeting SIGCOV, from independent reliable sources. Keep votes are depending on name mentions and primary sources neither of which show notability. // Timothy :: talk 17:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 List of Mega Monster Battle characters. ✗plicit 00:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraman Belial

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

Most of it were just primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AfD'ing it to end the edit war. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:45, 19 April 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 Television. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, then if you don't mind, may I downsize the page? Even if the verdict is unchanged, at least I tried. Zero stylinx (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can definitely improve the article while it's here at AfD. The most important thing is to identify reliable independent sources that cover this topic. There are a lot of sources in the article right now — I don't read Japanese, so I don't know how to evaluate them. What do you think the best sources are? Toughpigs (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over other 3 character articles that are related with this, but oh god all of the sources that were used were also primary sources. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 05:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject, and this is critical, lacks independent notability. A decision to Merge the text to Mega Monster Battle: Ultra Galaxy, after a serious trimming, would be not unwelcome and perhaps preferable to a plain Redirect. -The Gnome (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the List of Mega Monster Battle characters instead, I can relocate some of Belial's story to that column easily. Zero stylinx (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, not bad at all that. -The Gnome (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2024 (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 Fallout series#Post-War conditions. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 12:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mutant

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

Recent GAN, I declined it due to a lack of strong sourcing, with most of it being trivial mentions and sources not really discussing Super Mutants as a species. I've done a BEFORE and found very little beyond what's here, and after discussing it with the nominator, I've elected to send this to AfD to determine a consensus. Due to a lack of familiarity with Fallout, I'm not really sure as to a good AtD, but in any case, I don't believe this article currently meets Wikipedia's notability guideline. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:03, 18 April 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. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment forgot to do this in my nomination, but pinging @Haleth due to their large contributions to the article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - not notable independently of the Fallout series. Flounder fillet (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, why would you delete it entirely. There's other WP:ATD option. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Fallout_(series). Multiple editors have suggested redirecting there, but the topic is not covered by that article. Flounder fillet (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention "not notable (qualifier)" demonstrates a poor understanding of notability. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References 2, 6, and 36 are sigcov independent RSes. Even if the notability was borderline here--and I argue that it's fine--this is a really well written fictional element article: exactly what we want to encourage people to write. The fact that it's been dragged to AfD is unfortunate and probably demoralizing. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 2 is CBR, which does not factor into notability. Reference 6 is a listicle discussing one specific Super Mutant, not the species as a whole. Reference 36 does not actually offer any commentary, and instead is just coverage of one guy attempting to rationalize a retcon on Twitter. Normally I'd accept any one of these things in an article as support, or in 36's case, if there was commentary alongside it, but there's no real backbone or meat to the article beyond the one scholar source, which in and of itself barely discusses the Super Mutants. I agree that the writing quality overall is excellent, but the sourcing itself is rather bare and not meeting notability for a fictional element independently from its source material. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those source assessments are correct. CBR is RS for fictional topics. Reference 6 is all about a specific super mutant, so discusses the topic of super mutants (e.g. comparing memory of one super mutant to the species as a whole) in depth, and 36 is RS coverage of a twitter discussion--this happens all the time. Mind you, I skimmed the list and searched five that looked promising before settling on these three, so there's probably plenty more adequate coverage there. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:VALNET: "In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability outside of periods they were considered reliable or prior to being purchased by Valnet, due to concerns over undue weight and content farming." Personally, I feel the assessment is a bit harsh, but I do recognize that if we're going strictly off of policy, CBR is a source that, while adequate, does not provide weight in this discussion towards notability. As for Ref 6, while TheGamer is reliable, it is one of their pure listicle articles, and only focuses on one individual. Lily is a very separate individual from the concept of Super Mutants as a whole, and thus the source acts as coverage discussing Lily, not Super Mutants. I will also note that this source is practically all plot summary about Lily; there's very little commentary, if at all. I can see the argument for the Eurogamer source, but even then the commentary is less so about the Mutants and more about the retcons involving them. There's little actual commentary on their character here, and thus does not contribute much to actual discussion of them. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fallout (series)#Post-War conditions or similar. I think Pokelego's analysis is fair; if better sources come up at any point, please ping me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fallout (series)#Post-War conditions per nomination. There aren't a lot of RSes here, and none of these sources suggest independent notability for this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fallout (series) with no prejudice towards recreation if sufficient SIGCOV is found. This is a topic that could be notable at some point, sources may even exist, but right now there is a serious lack of significant coverage demonstrated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fallout (series)#Post-War conditions doesn't even mention them. It definitely should, but it would be what, a few sentences? Merge is an option, but a new article about the world of the series should be created for that. While there was no Super Mutants in TV series, yet, I think it's just a matter of time. Interesting how articles which notability *rises* are so often nominated. Mithoron (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bit surprised to hear that they don't show up in the TV series, but I don't think that saying that they certainly will in the future really gives any weight to keeping this article as a stand-alone now. It will probably be quite a bit of time before that second season is released, and guessing that they probably will be introduced and probably will have coverage then is more or less a WP:CRYSTAL statement. As Zxcvbnm pointed out, if and when more coverage becomes available, there is no prejudice against splitting it back out as an independent article then. Rorshacma (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fallout (series)#Post-War conditions - I agree with the above arguments for why the subject currently does not meet the threshold to sustain an independent article, but as Flounder fillet pointed out above, it is not actually covered at the proposed section of the Fallout article, and is barely mentioned throughout that article as a whole. So, there should be some Merging going on, not just a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fallout (series) or subsection thereof. Star Mississippi 17:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Rorshacma. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to support a separate article, but it can be summarized and merged at the series article. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fallout series#Post-War conditions per all the above who said the same thing. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that Fallout (series) as an article has, to date, largely glossed over the appearances of Super Mutants in the franchise is not a reason to delete this article. I do agree with the sentiment that more information included in this article should be included in the overall series article, but it's not something which should be just relegated to Fallout series#Post-War conditions - as the creation of Super Mutants in Vaults is essential to the narrative of the first game, and a significant element of Fallout 3 and 76. To that end, I have just added to the mention of mutation experiments in Fallout series#Vaults. I think if this article is kept there is still going to be necessary additions to Fallout (series). SCSQ3 (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite see your argument here. We shouldn't merge this because there isn't info there? That's what a merge is for. In any case, in-series importance does not dictate the existence of a separate article. If it did, we'd have articles on a lot of subjects who have been determined to be non-notable at this point in time, such as King Dedede and Diddy Kong. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2024 (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 Sefirot. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sephiroth

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

This disambiguation page doesn't really seem to have a use, given it only contains two subjects, Sefirot and Sephiroth, which can easily have a hatnote at the top of their articles to accomplish the same disambiguation purpose. Given that Sephiroth is the name, and not Sefirot, which is only a similar sounding word, I'd suggest reclassing Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to just Sephiroth, and then keeping the hatnote that leads to Sefirot in the case that someone is looking for the concept. Overall, though, this page seems unneeded. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Religion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above and WP:ONEOTHER. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ONEOTHER and WP:DABPARTIAL. Unnecessary disambiguation page that can be resolved with a hatnote. Nothing else can logically be added to this. Agree with nom that Sephiroth is clearly the primary topic of the name so that article should be moved to Sephiroth without the disambiguator as well. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, there have been a few previous discussions relevant to explain why things are this way:

older ≠ wiser 02:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WikiNav there is no primary topic, and in fact more clicks go to Sefirot than the FF character. Therefore despite it seeming "obvious" to video game fans, it clearly has a different meaning to the greater public. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The primary topic for Sephiroth is not Sefirot, regardless of the relative pageviews. While they may be transliterating the same Hebrew term--and I'm not sure that's actually been established without looking into the FF character--similar but different names and content is exactly what hatnotes are for, isn't it? Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica clearly says that "Sephiroth" is an alternate name for Sefirot. I think it's highly likely the FF character's name was based on said mythology, also given the naming of Jenova, which resembles a certain Biblical name of God. Knowing this, both Sefirot and the FF character are viable topics for the term, and a DAB page is required. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I also support redirect to Sefirot with a hatnote per longterm significance if that would allow for a consensus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. No primary topic so WP:ONEOTHER is satisfied by keeping the page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Sefirot per ONEOTHER. If Sefirot is indeed the primary target, per ZXC, then Sephiroth should ~~be deleted and~~ become a redirect to Sefirot. There's no policy support for a two-page DAB. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said Sefirot was the primary target, but that there was no primary, though it might be arguable that Sefirot is primary by the longterm significance criterion. In that case, though, deletion is unnecessary, a primary redirect can simply be made. The main thing I am certain of is that the video game character is not primary, so there is zero scenario in which deletion of this page is merited.

DABs can certainly be 2 pages if there is no clear meaning of the word. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, changed position. Saving thousands of people a DAB click per month is an end unto itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to here per nom. That's honestly the most logical choice.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man: Do you have a response to the WikiNav information showing that more people click through to Sefirot than to the FF character from here? Because it seems to indicate that making the character primary is the illogical choice. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: It could also be a sake of curiosity and is the top result Zx. I mean I know if I was looking up Sephiroth and the first thing I saw was that my curiosity would be piqued.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say that I had a gut feeling that 95% of the visitors to this page were actually looking for the religious term, but got distracted by the FF character and curiously clicked on that link instead. It might sound ludicrous, but if I asked for evidence to refute it, there is none. The only thing we know for certain is the relative pageviews, therefore similarly, that argument cannot be confirmed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zx you asked a question and I gave a response. Even WikiNav seems to indicate most of the results are coming from a search result. In any event, I'm standing by my decision on this. Even a basic search result on Google indicates that the fictional character is the primarily subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After thinking about this a bit, this request is in essence a request to move Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to Sephiroth although it is presented in the guise of discussing deletion of a ~~redirect~~ disambiguation page. As disambiguation is necessary, whether with through hatnotes or a disambiguation page, this page cannot be deleted until there is consensus to move established with a transparent and properly listed MOVE discussion (not through a backdoor AfD). And the watchers of Sephirot should be notified of the discussion. older ≠ wiser 17:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm also OK with redirecting this to Sephirot with a hatnote to the Final Fantasy character. However, that same redirect was previously changed to a disambiguation page in this discussion. Pinging the participants: Steel1943, Dream Focus, Havradim. older ≠ wiser 17:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The disambiguation can be achieved with a hat note. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The disambiguation can be achieved with a hat note. Yes, I copied Shooterwalker. The hatnote will redirect people just as easily or as well as this unnecessary twodab. ~~Unless someone can provide evidence this is an actual alternate name/spelling for Sefirot and not simply a similar word, the character should be moved over it.~~ I do see its noted as a transliteration in the lead, which my eyes refused to register earlier. -- ferret (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I guess hat note does work. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's already a hatnote, and it would make sense to have one. Basically saying "delete per WP:ONEOTHER." TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These delete arguments do not address the WP:SURPRISE issue when people - actually most searchers - are looking for a religious term and land on a Final Fantasy character. While the DAB page may not technically be required, WP:ONEOTHER is specifically for when a primary topic exists. The FF character is in no way a primary topic for this term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while Sephirot is the usual English transliteration in Jewish Kabbalah, Sephiroth is the most common transliteration in Hermetic Qabalah for the same topic. Therefore a dab page should be maintained. Alternatively, redirect to Sephirot with a hatnote for the FF character. Skyerise (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should Sefirot be deemed the primary topic, I'm fine with Sefirot instead being the primary redirect. However, the article should have a hatnote leading to the video game character given the similar titles. In any case, the disambig page is unnecessary given this can just be handled by hatnotes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sephiroth to Sefirot and add a hatnote to game character. Sefirot is the primary topic per WP:PT2 due to "long-term significance". --Mika1h (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sefirot with a hatnote for Sephiroth. I feel like this isn't a Mario situation, where the character is so big that they get priority over the name. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In order to move Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to Sephiroth. Redirecting this to Sefirot because it doesn't seem that likely of a spelling mistake, and the current two disambiguation targets get around the same # of views. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, it's not a spelling error. I still think Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) should be moved here, and a hatnote can be added for Sefirot. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about what first comes to mind, but about what is correct in policy. Moving the page clearly isn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 21:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sefirot, add a hatnote for Sephiroth (Final Fantasy), I don't think Sephiroth would get priority over the name due to Sefirot having significantly more long term significance than the character.-Samoht27 (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2024
Redirect per above. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For what it's worth, straight-up "delete" is not applicable here since the title refers to at least one existent subject. (Otherwise, I do not have an opinion.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sefirot with a hatnote for Sephiroth (Final Fantasy), per Samoht27 and MKsLifeInANutshell. This is the only fully policy-compliant option, as there is a clear primary topic of this WP:TWODABS situation. BD2412 T 20:46, 24 April 2024 (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. Obviously no consensus to delete, and no consensus to merge has been achieved at this time. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Boss (Metal Gear)

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

The current sources at reception were just listicles and rankings. I tried to find any sources about this character per WP:BEFORE, but I cannot find any sigcov. Relying mostly with this single journal here [3] wouldn't help notability. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Science fiction and fantasy. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Conyo. This article isn't meeting notability as of right now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Characters of the Metal Gear series#Introduced in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater as an WP:ATD. I found a GameRant article [4] but not sure if this would really count. I'm also not sure if GameRant is reliable or not. Conyo14 (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is situational as a source, but Valnet sources does not help notability according to WP:VG/RS. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 03:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, half a source. But my !vote shall remain merge. Conyo14 (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:ATD. There is some sourcing but it's questionable whether it reaches WP:SIGCOV. This can be covered at the main game article. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] She has also been discussed with sigcov in these lists: [10] [11] [12] [13] I have not looked into any book or scholar sources yet, nor have I checked Japanese sources. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the Kotaku and IGN looks good, thou other sources doesn't really help GNG, but can also he used to improve the article further. So, I feel like the article is barely notable for now but is still in weak state. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After checking further, I felt like I'm satisfied a bit with the sources that were brought here now. But, I'll let afd stay here let others state their opinions here. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've decided to create a source analysis of Cukie's sources, and it has changed my !vote:

Source analysis by Conyo14

Source assessment by User:Conyo14
The Memory Card .15: Snake pulls the trigger	Plot WP:SUMMARY/brief routine mention of a plot. N
[14]	Brief analysis, but uncertain of reliability. Partial otherwise.
Breaking Down my Favorite Boss Fights of all Time	WP:BLOG N
Best Metal Gear Solid Boss of All Time Face-Off: The Winner Revealed	Although it is a ranking, there is enough to meet WP:SIGCOV Y
La legendaria soldado The Boss]	Meristation is considered reliable and the article does not read like a blog. Y
The 10 Greatest Final Bosses in Video Games	Brief mention, not in-depth analysis.
The best boss fights involve getting picked on by someone your own size	WP:BLOG N
Seven Video Games Where You Beat Up Your Dad	Brief, but maybe on the line between partial and full. I'll put it as good. Y
The 25 most inspirational female characters in games	WP:ROUTINE N

Not that it matters to affecting your !vote, the Game Developer blog is one that was chosen as a featured blog by GD editorial staff, and the author is a published SME in gaming. As far as The Mary Sue goes, it is listed as a reliable source on WP:RSP. I also do not believe that the use of WP:ROUTINE is appropriate; none of the citations I listed are news sources, all of these sources were posted years after release, written (presumably) because the author wanted to write about it. The Destructoid source, for example, is written as part of a series of significant parts of video games for their staff, with the author saying things like "Shooting The Boss, while over in a blink of an eye, really is a pretty innovative and surprisingly memorable moment. While it could have easily been incorporated into the always impressive cutscenes, making one, small creative decision to have the player perform this final killing shot makes the scene infinitely more powerful" as well as discuss the relationship between the player, Snake, and The Boss, their musing over whether the player is required to kill her or just let her die, and speculation on what Kojima was intending to depict by making the player execute her. I would strongly dispute the notion that ROUTINE applies in any capacity here. WP:SUMMARY also applies to an extent, but not to the entirety. The source is being utilized not for the description of the plot of The Boss, but for the author's feelings on her and her death. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide the thread for The Mary Sue? Conyo14 (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions should be linked on the perennial sources page in The Mary Sue's entry - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found it [15]. I will update the source analysis. Conyo14 (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the keep !votes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 05:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources listed above by Cukie Gherkin. X (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:ATD. The article itself was made by a blocked editor with zero conception of notability. I've noted the sources raised by Cukie Gherkin and do not believe they indicate enough SIGCOV for the article to be notable. If these are the best sources, the character is most fitting to a list of characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on the sources found by Cukie Gherkin and as analyzed by Conyo14. Searching in Google Scholar was also promising, with results including Metal Gear Solid: Hideo Kojima's Magnum Opus. Those inclined to WP:OHW may find the coverage in Emotions, Technology, and Video Games and "On Narrative and Gaming Gestalts" useful as well. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:09, 2 May 2024 (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. Someone really should add the sources listed to the list, it absolutely does need more references. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fate/Grand Order characters

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

While I'm a big fan of Fate/Grand Order as a game, I feel this list is a behemoth that ultimately fails notability on its own, and has become more of a cruft dragon that doesn't really explain why these characters are important. The bigger issue though is a notability one: while Fate itself definitely has reactions, the harder argument is that FGO's characters on their own do in an overarching way that makes it work for WP:N or WP:LISTN.

Even reception for Mash and Ritsuka would be more for them, and that could be worked into the parent game article (and as someone that tried to do a writeup on Mash, I'm not confident the sources are there) Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:22, 12 April 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) 02:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect The article is massive with no substance, cites all of ONE source (Anime News Network), and it might as well be written in Martian for people like me who know nothing about the games. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changing my vote to redirect. Why the flip do I keep forgetting this is an option? sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, article doesn't explain why this is a notable list/topic either. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I don't think it should be deleted, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP, since it does have somewhere to be redirected to, which is the main Fate/Grand Order article. While I find WP:TNT to be applied far too often to articles that are not in a very good state, I think this one of those articles that actually deserves it, should it ever be spun back out. Mash and Ritsuka might be better off with their own articles in this case. MoonJet (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per MoonJet - despite character lists being valid spin-offs, Wikipedia isn't TVTropes and there has to be something to go on to show notability. As it is, people are better served by checking the TVTropes character list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing more to say. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 23:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there is lot of plot summary fancruft, I think this passes NLIST. Aside of numerous game guides/tier lists and such that one can easily find, here are some more analytical sources. Granted, some are not great (listiclis is common here), but IMHO likely sufficient for keeping this as a stand-alone list. Here's a list of best sources I found - I think it gets stronger near the end :P 1) TheGamer 2020 - not a listicle: "Fate/Grand Order: My Servants Have My Back" 2) ScreenRant 2020 listicle - but I think it counts for NLIST: "Fate/Grand Order's Weirdest Real-Life Historical Figures" 3) TheGamer 2020 - article about a specific minor character How Lobo Broke (Then Fixed) My Heart In Fate/Grand Order" 4) GameRant 2023 listicle "Fate Grand Order: Best 5-Star Servants In The Game" 5) ScreenRant 2022 listicle "Fate/Grand Order: The Top 10 Servants Coming to English, Ranked" 5) CBR 2020 listicle (overalps with TV show but IMHO still relevant) "Fate/Grand Order - Absolute Demonic Front: Babylonia: Character Guide To Every Servant" 6) academic (if likely low tier journal) article profiling another FGO minor character: Baihaqi, Iqbal, Hafiz Aziz Ahmad, and Dana Waskita. "Adaptation of historical figures into mobile game characters (case study: Hijikata Toshizo from Fate/Grand Order)." Journal of Games, Game Art, and Gamification 7, no. 2 (2022): 21-28. 7) another academic article this time covering multiple characters Tomotani, João V., and Rodrigo Brincalepe Salvador. "Testing the Astolfo Effect on newly-released servants in Fate/Grand Order." (2022). 8) again, an academic study of one of the characters Yosugandi, Evan Marchel, and Hendra Kaprisma. "Historical figures in “Fate/Grand Order”: adapting Anastasia Romanova." RUDN Journal of Studies in Literature and Journalism 28, no. 4 (2023): 712-723. 9) there are various more or less SIGCOV-meeting discussions of FGO characters in a number of other academic works, I'll just leave two examples: academic book chapter on Community-based history learning: Fate/Grand Order's Online Fan Networks and an academic article Informal Strategies for Learning History in Japanese Mass Media Visual Culture: A Case Study of the Mobile Game Fate/Grand Order. PS. Last thought: this list is linked from Fate/Grand Order - Absolute Demonic Front: Babylonia which otherwise might need its own list. Even more relevant is Fate/Grand Order: Final Singularity-Grand Temple of Time: Solomon which features brief appearances of many characters. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping participants so you can review my argument/sources: @Beemer69 @Greenish Pickle! @Kung Fu Man @MoonJet @Traumnovelle @Wcquidditch @Zxcvbnm _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like some of these may work for individual character articles, but a bigger issue is that a lot of these are either about the game or the Fate franchise itself. Like the Astolfo article isn't commentary about the characters, but how introducing a new character into Fate as a series often supercedes search results for the real world counterpart (the Astolfo effect as it were, which is due to a character that originated from *another* Fate work). As useful as a lot of these can be for specific character, even I'm wary about the idea on building a list up on primarily valnet lists Piotrus...and I'm usually in favor of using Valnet as a source.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup/expand per Piotrus. When someone who often advances a TNT argument on fictional topics thinks this is salvageable, we should listen. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This reminds me of the case with the deletion request regarding the List of Paper Mario characters article in where while the initial article seems to be that of an unnoteworthy subject, references are clearly evident with Piotrus but that this article could use a rewrite in order to comply with notability standards as it's in a rough state as of writing this. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The article is long. I'll give the creator of it that. But it lacks sources. I agree with the nom as the main source is Anime News Network. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems like a split consensus between redirect and keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Keep. LISTN specifically sets out lists where each individual member might not be notable, but the collective as a whole is notable, as a valid case. I think that personally, FGO should be banned or the like (& other gacha), but it grudgingly is a big deal with zillions of dollars flowing around. Sourcing is certainly tricky due to the game's most devoted fanbase being in Japan, but I have no doubt that a reception-of-the-FGO characters section can be written, albeit possibly with Japanese sources in addition to the ones linked by Piotrus above. (Of course, I agree that part of the issue is that the reception is tied up across appearances across the franchise, so maybe there needs to be "Characters of Fate" article... but it seems the existing style is separate articles per work, since stay/night has its own separate characters article. And this article is already very long, and would get longer if it was turned into "Characters of Fate". Oh well.). SnowFire (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the sources uncovered here since my initial redirect vote, I'm in favor of keeping this. Though, it does need a lot of clean-up. MoonJet (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs both a "Design" chapter and a "Reception" chapter to better demonstrate notability. From the discussion above, I believe there are plenty of sources for these chapters. Supergrey1 (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (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

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 ==Fictional elements==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.I.D. Investigators}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Xanatos}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professor Hershel Layton}}