Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 16: Line 16:
==Fictional elements==
==Fictional elements==
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sonya_Blade}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World government in fiction}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World government in fiction}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angel_Dust_(Hazbin_Hotel)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angel_Dust_(Hazbin_Hotel)}}

Revision as of 06:10, 23 March 2024

Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.


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 keep‎ but this article seriously needs much cleanup if it is to remain in the long run. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonya Blade

Sonya Blade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I did try cleaning up all of those sources that have no commentary, unreliable, and that talks only about listicles/rankings/hotties ranks, but there's more. After all of that, I felt like Sonya now has zero WP:Sigcov. The only valuable sources were the 2 pdf/journal at the end that only talks about her custome at MK9. That's it. Per WP:BEFORE, most of the sources appears to be only like this [1] [2] [3] [4][5] that provides almost nothing about the character and are usually not a Sigcov. The rest sources were just her announcement to the game and all of these just usually say "WoW Sonya Is Back In New Trailer, so coOl". GreenishPickle! (🔔) 05:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The criticism of WP:REFBOMBing is valid here. I want to give this the benefit of the doubt that this might still have WP:SIGCOV. But it's hard to assess given the amount of tangential information added to this article to pad it. A clean-up would be a good start, and I think there's a consensus for that. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you be willing to weigh in on the sources linked here? Honestly, a lot of fighting game character articles are refbombed, which is going to be a process of cleaning up across the board. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it needs clean-up too, especially the "appearances" section, which definitely is in need of some trimming. This seems to be a left over from the older Wikipedia days, where certain users (myself included, I have to admit) over-cited character articles. That said, I'm in favor of keeping the article per my above arguments, but tagging it for clean-up. MoonJet (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair I put more of the blame on Niemti and his tendency to overblow everything he can than you. It's also why I've been hesitant to AfD Mortal Kombat subjects because until the junk it cleaved out it's hard to know just how much of it is actually useful and give a fair image if a AfD is necessary or not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up at least temporarily, so the article can be improved. I'm basing this on the significant coverage in "Sonya Blade finally feels like a real character in Mortal Kombat X". This provides the kind of in-depth analysis needed for a separate article, even if we would still need more sources like this. Some of the other sources are more borderline, but I'm convinced there are multiple reliable sources with significant coverage, lost between the padding. AFD isn't clean-up, but hopefully editors can keep improving the article. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:23, 27 March 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 delete‎. Complex/Rational 02:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World government in fiction

World government in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the usual fancrufty mess (similar to Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Political ideas in science fiction). Let's see. Zero references for the prose part, only few footnotes for the very long list of examples (99% of which is unreferenced). While the topic might be notable (might; my BEFORE failed to locate anything good), the current execution fails WP:V, WP:OR, WP:IPC/MOS:TRIVIA, as well as WP:NLIST/WP:LISTN. This was split from World government in 2005, then completely removed from that article, and this one hasn't improved in ~20 years - it is pure WP:NOTTVTROPES. At best, we could WP:ATD-R it back to World government, except there is no section to target(update: there is now, but it is unreferenced - I split it from the lead), and not a single ref discussing this concept. Maybe United Nations in popular culture, which is somewhat better, could be a plausible redirect instead? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:35, 23 March 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 List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Dust (Hazbin Hotel)

Angel Dust (Hazbin Hotel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. This source [12] is a bit useful for addition, but isn't a sigcov at all. Per WP:BEFORE, only this source could be useful [13], but nothing else. What we have sources now at the reception were just the reviews of the film itself and listicles/rankings only. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reviews of "Masquerade", the Angel Dust-centric fourth episode, and the B-plot of "Welcome to Heaven", the sixth episode, delve into the characterisation of the character and voice actor performance, passing WP:SIGCOV. 2001:BB6:3A30:D700:5195:FE6F:1E81:6F85 (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not really. The reviews are for the episodes themselves, and as far as my Google search goes, none go into detail on the character. Per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES: Notability requires the presence of significant treatment of a subject in reliable independent sources, not just the mere presence of the searched-for term. Also, per WP:FICT: Specifically, fictional elements are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage in independent secondary sources about the fictional element. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Spinixster (chat!) 01:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a case of something like Porygon lacking an article despite Dennō Senshi Porygon having an article. Having episodes dedicated to a character can help, but there needs to be actual coverage on the element outside of whatever they're associated with. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per WP:TOOSOON Maybe this character will be important for independent coverage in the future, but not now. Samoht27 (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support would be to redirect/move the page back into draftspace/merge the reception into List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters, right? I agree this character should receive a page at one point, but maybe later in the year/next year when there is just a little bit more coverage. 2001:BB6:3A30:D700:55D1:AA1:430B:8A45 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do believe that this character will likely have coverage in the future, so to merge into List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters would be optimal. Samoht27 (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters. Most of the sources are primary sources, Decider is unreliable, and the rest I can’t really find on WP:RSP Brachy08 (Talk) 10:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters. Most sources include passing mention and no in-depth coverage specifically on the character. The information, however, could definitely be worked into the list. Maybe some time in the future, the continued popularity of this character could warrant an article, but it is simply WP:TOOSOON to include one with so little coverage. ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 17:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters. There are not enough sites, besides Decider, that cover the character specifically. --Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 08:27, 27 March 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 Withdrawn‎. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alastor (Hazbin Hotel)

Alastor (Hazbin Hotel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. per WP:BEFORE, only this source could be useful [14], but nothing else. What we have sources now at the reception were just the reviews of the film itself and listicles/rankings only. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:SIGCOV of Alastor the Radio Demon does exist in spades [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]; the article is restricted to autoconfirmed or confirmed editors until 03:42, 16 May 2024, so those references cannot be added yet. A deletion discussion is premature until the article is open to be edited again. 2001:BB6:3A30:D700:5195:FE6F:1E81:6F85 (talk) 23:20, 22 March 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. Like the last AFD, I see a consensus to Keep this article. I encourage editors to review WP:FANCRUFT which is an essay, not a policy guideline. It looks like there have been improvements made to the article since it's recent nomination and I hope they can continue to address the nominator's valid concerns. Liz Read! Talk! 18:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish comic book characters

AfDs for this article:
List of Jewish comic book characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list seems to be an unreferenced fan-cruft list. None of the entries have citations, and I don't think this subject is notable. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just easily found and added a bunch of references. Searching for a name and "Jew" is not hard to do. I don't see how it could possibly be controversial to say someone is Jewish, especially not a fictional character. Dream Focus 03:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think you would benefit from reviewing the literature, including that I cited above. Also, your argument doesn't logically follow: the nom cited notability. I addressed notability. You argue that a list of Jewish comic characters is not notable when I've just demonstrated that Jewish comic characters, as a topic, are notable. That's textbook LISTN: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Even given your habit of suggesting that surmountable problems make an article deletion-worthy, that's not even what you're arguing here. I'm puzzled; your arguments, even when I disagree with them, are usually much stronger than this. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources from Jclemens, theme is commonly discussed in media.
FortunateSons (talk) 12:28, 24 March 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fiction employing parallel universes

List of fiction employing parallel universes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have a decent-ish Parallel universes in fiction from which this was spun off, creating a bad list - one that fails WP:LISTN/WP:NLIST, WP:OR as well as WP:IPC/MOS:TRIVIA. WP:NOTTVTROPES - this is just, sadly, WP:FANCRUFTy list of randomly selected works that include this concept - some of them are pretty far fetched, too (ex. Avengers: Endgame which does not even mention this term in the article). The aforementioned Parallel universes in fiction article will do just fine (although it has some listy content that needs to be pruned). At best, per WP:ATD-R, this can be redirected to the main article - maybe someone will fine something from here useful for merging or otherwise one day. PS. On the off chance this is kept, it obviously needs a rename too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:32, 20 March 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 Han shot first. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greedo

Greedo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely redundant to Han shot first, and I can't seem to find info on the character specifically. Given he's rather minor, I'd support a redirect either to the character list or to Han shot first. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Han shot first. Not seeing stand-alone notability - we just have plot summary and then discussion of 'Han shot first'. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:11, 20 March 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 List of Darkstalkers characters. Even though the related AFD hasn't been closed yet, it looks like it's skewing towards a Keep so I'm moving forward with closing this discussion. If the other article isn't kept, we can change the Merge target article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia (Darkstalkers)

Felicia (Darkstalkers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Going to be direct: this is yet another Niemti effort, and has the same hallmarks as the previous articles: an overreliance on lists that say next to nothing (often how sexy the character is), sources cited for saying more than they actually are, and ultimately nothing said about her character.

Felicia is a very recognizable character. One of the most recognizable ones from the Darkstalkers franchise, alongside Morrigan. However, recognizable does not equate to *discussion*. Even the recently added academic article added has nothing to do with Felicia, but commentary on cosplay in regards to decency laws, and not an examination of Felicia in those regards (Hell even by the article's own admission the cosplay was changed from the character's appearance).

Sadly...you can only say "Felicia is mostly naked" so many times. That alone doesn't merit an article. C. Viper was compared to a King of Fighters character in terms of design by a massive number of publications...and just that. And that didn't survive an AfD. Multiple Dead or Alive female characters also had some variation of "they're sexy" as the crux of their whole article, and they also didn't pass notability standards.

I would really like Felicia to have something, but after extensive searching...all we have is "she's mostly naked and sexy for it" and "she's one of the most recognizable of the lot because she gets reused a lot". That's not a base to build around when all the commentary is the same. Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above reasonings. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. I don't find enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as List of Darkstalkers characters, the proposed Merge target, is also up for a AFD deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 26 March 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 11:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Darkstalkers characters

AfDs for this article:
List of Darkstalkers characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Less than a week ago, I merged the contents of this list into Darkstalkers#Characters after condensing it down. However, Zxcvbnm objected, citing the previous AfD's consensus.

However, I'm not arguing overlying notability for the characters as a whole separate of the franchise (which is a concern on its own vs reception for individual characters, but I digress), but instead that the list itself does not need to be a separate entity. As you can see from the link above, it fits perfectly inside the series article, without making it too large, the key concerns for such a split here normally.

I don't feel in its current form a massive list is necessary, and I don't forsee it getting expanded further (the last new character added was Dee in 2005, almost 20 years ago). As it stands, there's no need for a separate article to compound our already overflowing list problem. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: For the sake of transparency, this was the version of the list's page prior to reorganizing, which not only included excessive detail randomly, but also random gameplay bits, trivial reception from past merges, and some very questionable sources (EventHubs, "Flying Omelette"?). The goal of the original reduction was to aim closer to more streamlined lists, and then cite any information as needed. This got interrupted mid-cleanup efforts.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assuming no information is being lost, I am not opposed to a merge to Darkstalkers#Characters. CaptainGalaxy 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2: Electric Boogaloo Similar to the last AfD, deletion is not cleanup and there's no particular reason a character list should not exist, as these sorts of articles are VERY well established on Wikipedia. It was shown that the article can certainly stand on its own if improved, as the cast of Darkstalkers is one of the more well-known in video game history. "Overflowing list problem" is a personal opinion and it's impossible to tell whether or not it will be improved, as you are no fortune-teller. That's simply a WP:NOEFFORT argument. If you really want to see it fixed, your time's better spent fixing it than arguing it should be removed. See also WP:BEBOLD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zx your argument falls into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because "other articles" are established does not mean that one cannot be merged. This not a "No Effort" approach or a lack of "Being Bold", that's an honest observation from someone that has put a fair share of research into this subject. Additionally this is not an attempt at "cleanup" but to make an argument that the list itself does not need to be separate from the parent, which is fair game for AfD to determine consensus. So I will ask that you assume some good faith, and to not be rude.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not fall under OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because I am not arguing this article should be kept because it's the same as another particular article. I said that this TYPE of article is common, which implies it is typical under Wikipedia policy. Unless you are arguing that all character lists should not exist, which is not really an issue to be decided in a single AfD, but something like RfC. I didn't mean to marginalize the effort you put into the merger, but cutting something down tends to be easier than building it up. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does feel like the argument fits into a form of OTHERSTUFF, because the argument's being made that similar lists are considered "acceptable" on their own on wikipedia, which is debatable on a case by case basis. And I feel significant effort was done to maintain the reader has an understanding of each character in the context of the franchise. If all the information is retained in the series article as it is in the list, how is any information lost?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This makes the other article too long if put there. Having it separate makes it more readable. Kung Fu Man made the article in October 2008‎. It was far longer through most of its existence. In December 2023, Kung Fu Man reduced it from 84K to 15K. [21] 104 references down to 7. I think some of the referenced information where reliable sources talked about the characters should be included. Also the overview chart showing which games had which notable characters should've been kept. Dream Focus 21:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the refs appear to have shuffled off to standalone character articles so no information appears to have been lost. — Masem (t) 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is only one standalone character article, Morrigan Aensland, the rest are just redirects to here. Kung Fu Man seems to have merged them over here last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baby_Bonnie_Hood&diff=1154824604&oldid=1154823810 Dream Focus 21:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Given KFM's work on character articles and cleaning up bad sourcing, I trust that these trims and removal of sources followed in line with eliminating sources that barely touched on the subject, along with excessive primary sourcing. This judging from a scan of the ore trimmed version and where sources were used. Masem (t) 23:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I will say that I would have objected more to the mergers of the various characters if I knew that the character list was set to be merged too. Moving them all to a list is due weight. Moving them all to the series article is undue weight. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is an important point that bears a lot of scrutiny. Non-transparently planning to eliminate content via repeated mergers is arguably tendentious editing. You want 'em all gone? Fine: nominate them all. Don't merge them all editorially... and then force a re-merge in AfD so there's very little left. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This, plus many perfectly reliable sources demonstrating WP:LISTN were purged from the character list for some reason and I frankly have no clue why they were removed, with the only thing I can think of being to make the article seem less notable for a deletion or merge. Why purge the character list from HG101, or GamesRadar? It makes no sense; this is literally a list of characters from the game, so it's absolutely relevant. I tried to add a bit back in, but I'm of half a mind to revert the article gutting entirely. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You know, considering that you had just previously took umbrage over the implication that you were applying double standards based on whether an article whose notability is being questioned is one you made or not, I find it kind of distasteful to go around and suggest an editor in good standing is, in essence, intentionally doing harm to the project for nefarious purposes. I don't think it's right to show such offense over that if you do not extend the same level of courtesy to other users. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Policy and guidelines argue against unnecessary splits of material, and the nom demonstrates that a merged article is nowhere close to a size problem where a split would be required. Add that there are no non-primary sources, and that supports including the content in the main article to avoid notability issues with the list. Zxcvbnm's argument amounts to a form of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; character lists like this with minimal sourcing are tolerated but I would not consider them widely accepted.Masem (t) 21:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Speedy Keep The topic of "List of X characters" is "X" so as long as Darkstalkers exists List of Darkstalkers characters is not subject to deletion on notability grounds. NOTINHERITED doesn't apply, because this is the same topic covered in multiple articles. Now, if things fail V or NOR, that's a different issue, but usually one that can be addressed by editing rather than deletion. More to the point: of all the problems in Wikipedia, who thinks that collapsing character lists into their franchises is in the top 10? Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clemens, not a single thing there addressed my argument.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I suppose. What precise DEL#REASON applies? Jclemens (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Content fork in this case: the information here can fit inside the series article without a loss of material, and stuff like development and reception would apply just as much to the series as the list. No information would be lost, and no need to keep them separate. Articles can still be spun out from the series page just fine also if notability is established for a character later on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing how a character list is an impermissible WP:CFORK. It's neither redundant nor a POV fork. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's currently an unnecessary fork, and an argument can be further made that it strengthens the body of the series article as a result versus separate from it, and again the dev and reception info would be echoed between the series article and list. It's not a Street Fighter or Guilty Gear situation where we have entry upon entry for many of the characters: Darkstalkers at its core only has two truly "full" games between Darkstalkers/Night Warriors and the many iterations of Vampire Savior.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If all you want is to merge the articles, why is this a nomination for deletion instead of just a merge request? It seems like doing this at AfD just makes the discussion more stressful. Toughpigs (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Information from the article is still in the series article currently, so "Redirect" is a valid option here. But more importantly is that it was quickly obvious this was going to be a contentious subject. AfD is viable for this sort of discussion, especially compared to how much of a mess merge discussions have become where they stretch months on end before requesting a closer, at least as far as VG project articles go.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you've just admitted that there is no reason this content is impermissible: No WP:CFORK violation exists, no other WP:DEL#REASON applies. Am I wrong? If so, please point me out the policy-based rationale for starting this deletion discussion. I'm just not seeing it. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the content on the list can fit into the main series article just fine without a loss of information; the current series article demonstrates that. Can we not engage in wikilawyering?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikilawyering is defined as "Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities". Asking for a basic policy reason when you gave none (besides "it's not necessary", more of a WP:USELESS argument) is not a technicality. There's something wrong if you think that anyone who dares argue a different opinion is being a Wikilawyer. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Upgrading my keep to speedy keep per #3: no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. Look, I'm fine with using AfD as articles for discussion--I quite favor it, in fact--but the price of entry is that you have to provide at least one rationale by which the target article could be deleted. I've asked. You haven't. So you can take this to a talk page discussion, but AfD should not be asked to compel a merge outcome when there is no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. It's not about whether the list meets LISTN or not, it's about whether there needs to be a split in the first place. KFM has proven that this list reasonably fits within the Darkstalkers article without disrupting it, so I don't see a need for an unnecessary content fork here. Arguments above have been ignoring the core argument of this AfD, which is about whether or not this split is necessary. NLIST isn't being argued here, that can be established, it's whether or not we really need this article to be separated. Based off what I'm seeing, I don't think a split is necessary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: I am unsure if you are aware, but the article was pared down to a tiny fraction of its former size prior to being "merged", including removal of numerous WP:RS. It fits in its current, barely-there state, but not in its previous fleshed-out one. I don't think much has been "proven" here at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any cut characters. The only issue I see is that RS were removed, and if that is the case, simply add them back to the article. One or two articles per character (Which seems pretty unlikely) should not bloat the article to a significant extent. This seems like a matter that can be resolved by simple editing, and if the article does in fact achieve significant bloat by adding the sources to its current state, then that can be a separate split discussion. The size is manageable, and further discussion should have been done before a BLAR revert. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: This is what you really want to defend as "fleshed out"? Really? The one with Eventhubs, "FlyingOmelete", and leftover gameguide commentary from past merges?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources really were unreliable, yes - there were a number of blatant blogs that failed WP:USERG outright. But you are cherry-picking the absolute worst sources that for sure should have been removed. You also deleted many usable sources, so it was, in the most charitable interpretation, a rushed, "baby out with the bathwater" situation. Why was a full article on Anakaris from VentureBeat written by a WIRED journalist deleted despite being SIGCOV? Such things completely torpedo your argument that all the cleanup you did was of poor sources, and that the characters cannot be expanded within the list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did jump in on this during an ongoing effort to clean it up and rework the series article as a whole, a long term effort not unlike those you do. The list was merged less than a weak ago, and had an AfD disrupt things to boot. Stuff like VentureBeat wasn't worked back in *yet*, but it also doesn't say a lot and can be taken down to a sentence. For comparison, the List of generation I Pokémon is being worked on by cogsan, and many of those Pokemon undoubtedly have at least one SIGCOV article somewhere, but one also has to consider the list as a whole. That said it feels like some of this could be ironed out on my talk page instead of muddying this discussion further.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a longterm effort at cleanup, gutting and/or blanking this article is the very wrong way to go about it. It should remain untouched, and a new draft created elsewhere until it is ready to replace the existing content. At that point you can start a merge discussion using the draft as evidence. It still doesn't mean deleting this article wholesale is merited at all regardless of how poor quality you think it is right now. Currently there is no replacement for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep On one hand, I strongly agree with the nominator that the listification approach can be redundant and often produces poor-quality articles where the subject matter is better canvassed within the primary article. But in the context of this article, editors worked to improve the quality and merge non-notable characters to it, stripping the pretty wide (if highly flawed) sourcing in the purpose. Fighting games also strike me as having appropriate separated character articles because the characters tend to have significant attention as the narrative and gameplay anchor for the games. Although noting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS there is a commonplace practice of having character lists accompany the article: such as for Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, King of Fighters, which originally didn't look too dissimilar to how this used to be honestly. It feels like there's not a settled approach to the future of this that has been exposed by the deletion nomination, and because there is not a self-evident notability issue the direction should be to err on the side of caution. No expert on this stuff though - as stated above there's not a lot of guidance on where the best approach lies for character articles and fictional lists. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ＶＲＸＣＥＳ Offering some food for thought, but I feel a big thing to consider with that comparison is that MK, Street Fighter and KoF also have had 10+ games each to build canon from for their characters. Darkstalkers, as a series has only had two: Night Warriors is a re-release of Darkstalkers with two characters and the bosses playable, while every game after is just a modified version of Vampire Savior, story and all. When distilled there really isn't much story per character, or traits.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who has done searches for Darkstalkers characters, there's very little sigcov on the cast. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AFD2.0, we were just debating this article a month ago. I'm relisting the discussion as opinion is split between those editors advocating Keeping the article and those supporting a Merge. One editor states that the nominator is arguing for a Merge, is that accurate? No one is supporting an outright deletion, right?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The nominator is very clearly arguing for a merge, as they stated "does not need to be a separate entity. As you can see from the link above, it fits perfectly inside the series article", which is a merge rather than deletion argument. They acknowledge the notability of the cast but nevertheless believe it should be merged as after they cleaned up what they believed to be poor sources, the article became a hollow shell. In its current state, the article could be merged with nothing lost, however, many of the sources they removed are perfectly good, viable SIGCOV and their deletions resulted in a net loss of information. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sigcov was removed? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zx I'm just going to be blunt, that's hogwash. The issue is WP:NOPAGE: the information in this article can fit neatly inside Darkstalkers#Plot (as it currently does), and the development and reception info is going to be the same for the series as for the list. There's no need for a separate list.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then, I know claims don't mean much without evidence, so here's proof of the significant sources that are not in this version. As mentioned above, an article on Anakaris was removed, and the significant coverage from Den of Geek is still AWOL for no apparent reason, despite also having a full character list of the original roster and a bit of analysis. The character list from Hardcore Gaming 101 was purged to the aether until I added it back myself. At the time of the AfD the character roster from GamesRadar+ wasn't there either. Some of the articles were truly trivial/unreliable coverage, but yeah - baby with the bathwater. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to ask a dumb question, but wouldn't Den of Geek's article make more sense in the series article given it's reception on, well, the series? As for Anakaris' it is it's entirely about the character's gameplay which would be hard to work in; I mean many characters on List of generation I Pokémon have similar articles, would you argue those should be worked into there as well?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be used for both articles, certainly. I am unsure why it would be disqualified from use in a character list however, as significant coverage is not required to be the focus of the source material. And "entirely about the character's gameplay"... it's perfectly reasonable to use an article about the gameplay as a source. I don't see anywhere in policy that bans such a thing, frankly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. while gameplay coverage from secondary sources should be incorporated into our video game coverage, we don't want to pull gameplay from primary sources like gameplay guides. — Masem (t) 19:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's clearly some confusion here about what WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE actually means. It states that writers should "Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context". It's not a blanket prohibition of anything talking about gameplay, only specifies that guides should not pop up apropos of nothing, like just wanting to write a FAQ for the cool new game that just released. None of the sources I gave are primary; all are secondary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - So, it seems the main argument here is that the article isn't "needed." But on the other hand, I don't see any convincing reasons on why the article shouldn't exist either. In its current state, you can argue that it fits fine in the series article, but I also see WP:POTENTIAL for some expansion. There are some articles discussing some of its characters, such as from Game Rant, The Gamer and GamesRadar. MoonJet (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of these sources give at most a sentence of commentary on the characters as a collective, focusing more on giving short snippets towards the individual members. There's not enough in any of these articles to really buff up this one substantially, and I'd argue that your argument as a whole falls under WP: NOPAGE. If it doesn't need to exist and can be better covered at another article, than it should be. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, seeing as Felicia will soon almost surely be merged per AFD result, that will leave Morrigan as the only Darkstalkers character with their own article. Surely there could some discussion on some of the characters merged in there, even though it proved to be not quite enough for their article? Demitri also had has own article, until fairly recently, for example. Keep in mind that WP:LISTN notes that one way to establish notability for lists is to have sources that discuss the set as a group, not the only way. In any case, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I see a valid split here. You don't. MoonJet (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's enough for a split, maybe, but most of the commentary is very fleeting for the bulk of the characters. There's probably a good chunk for recently merged characters like Felicia and Demitri, but most won't have that, and those chunks can likely be covered in the main Darkstalkers article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [22][23][24][25] Rjjiii (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two articles have already been cited by Moonjet above and the other two suffer from similar reasons as above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:31, 31 March 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 List of generation I Pokémon#Lapras. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lapras

AfDs for this article:
Lapras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a huge slow-burn edit war going on in this page, largely because people are interpreting the prematurely withdrawn earlier AfD as a de facto keep. The older AfD was withdrawn inappropriately, since it was a WP:SUPERVOTE by nominator despite half the votes calling for a redirect. After checking the sources, I am heavily under the belief that Lapras is non-notable fancruft. Any major coverage is related to Lapras becoming a regional mascot, a publicity stunt that also applies to numerous other Pokemon. WP:NOTPROMO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of generation I Pokémon#Lapras (and perhaps merge some of the info about its status as a mascot into the section). Not that I want this article removed, but it's clear that outside of character's position as symbol for Japanese prefectures, there isn't much commentary of Lapras itself outside of short summary listicles. I've checked myself and could find much. And as mentioned by the nominator, the previous AFD was pulled as super keep, despite half of the respondents calling for the article to be redirected. And since then, the regulations and qualification standards for what can pass for a video game character article has significantly changed per the founding of the Video game character task force, meaning the keep votes from the 2021 AFD don't hold the same weight as they once did. CaptainGalaxy 12:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Personally I think the promo contributes to notability in this case, but even then there just isn't enough to bolster a whole article. Ping me if sources are found but otherwise I don't think there's enough here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with no predjudice to recreate if notable later I feel as time has gone on more sources have been found to give notability to some subjects on here, and often AfD is a deterrent towards that. At this time, after a thorough WP:BEFORE, there's not enough material here for notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:08, 18 March 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. Participants here don't seem to think TNT is called for. Article can be improved through editing, not deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inertia damper

Inertia damper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very similar case to the about-to-be-deleted mess that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inertia negation. Mostly unreferenced OR, half of which is an unsourced list of "Real-world applications and devices". The only two footnotes are for the red-linked concept of a rotary damper (perhaps it is notable and should be split and stubbed?). I'll note that the concept of "Inertia damper" does have a few hundred hits on GScholar, so there may be a real science concept to be written about here, but what we have begs for WP:TNT, IMHO. Pinging participants of the aforementioned AfD: User:Lubal, User:Xxanthippe, User:Zxcvbnm, User:Shooterwalker, User:Johnjbarton, User:Rorshacma and User:DrowssapSMM. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:51, 18 March 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Mason

Heather Mason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Having a hard time to find any SIGCOV about Heather per WP:BEFORE, either at google scholar (I might be wrong). Ref 26 and 27 might be helpful, but isn't enough to pull WP:GNG around somehow. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: [32] This source goes over the character's recent resurgance on Tik Tock, and I believe Variety is a high profile source to count as a SIGCOV per Wikipedia's rules. There's also this piece from Collider that goes into the character from 2021 [33], but I don't know if Collider meets the SIGCOV guidelines. Transformers03 (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but both the sources you cited were unreliable but I think the article will survive because of the discovered sources above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true, Vulture is a reliable source, and Collider is not listed as unreliable on either here or WP:RSP. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote down Variety, but I meant Vulture, and Cukie Gherkin is right. Vulture has been used multiple times as a reliable source for film and television, and is listed as reliable source on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources Wikipedia page. Vulture is listed reliable as as a subsidiary of the New York magazine. The Vulture piece is a real commentary about the subject within a modern context, showcasing the character is still relevant. Transformers03 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've looked through the presented sources and am still unconvinced. It's essentially a few paragraphs of real commentary mixed with a lot of fluff - there is no slam-dunk evidence that the character list would be too small to hold all the commentary about her, which is what the argument must be here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what your point is here. A few paragraphs of significant commentary isn't discounted by the presence of fluff around it. It just seems like you admitted that there's significant coverage of Heather to me! As WP:GNG notes, the article itself doesn't have to be about the subject for it to constitute as sigcov. Also, "this character could fit into a list" isn't an argument either, as the question of if a character could have an article is weighed more on the character's individual notability than the character's ability to work in a list. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • To make a comparison, it was argued on the World of Ruin talk page that the subject, even if notable, could work better as part of the FF6 article. In that case, there is an argument to be made that the subject actively works better as part of the FF6 article, not just that it could be covered. Unless you've changed your mind on that article, I would contend "it could work in its main article" applies more there than it does here. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Pointing to an editor's other, totally unrelated article to impugn them is an argument to the person. You are essentially accusing me of bad faith when there is no evidence that is the case. AfD is a harsh enough environment without other editors insinuating you lack the credentials to ever participate there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I made the point that I find it difficult to understand the standard you are applying based on previous discussions, which I think is a perfectly valid thing to bring up. My argument is that I cannot understand the rationale behind your argument or why you're making it. As you yourself noted, Heather has real commentary, so I legitimately have no idea what your objection is. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I usually consider the nature of the commentary, whether it is done as an aside to a larger topic or as part of something largely focused on the topic in question. If there were a couple other articles like the Vulture one I would probably think it was weakly meriting an article, but I am seeing larger discussions about the plot of Silent Hill 3 in which Heather is brought up in passing alongside various other characters who are given equal billing (thus making it better for a character article reception discussion), and listicles. Unless some really good alternative sources come up I won't be swayed on this, but that's my opinion and people are free to dissent. I'm not gonna argue if everyone else thinks otherwise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: useful sources discovered. The dogcat (talk) 17:41, 17 March 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 delete‎. Anyone is free to create a redirect if they see fit. ✗plicit 04:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inertia negation

Inertia negation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hypothecial (fictional) concept that seems to fail WP:GNG. BEFORE shows next to no hits on GScholar, what we have is pure WP:OR (unreferenced) mixing speculations about real science with fiction. Sole reference (not footnoted) is a book on UFOlogy and sole EL is to the Star Trek wiki. I have no suggestion for a plausible redirect this time - this is so bad I fear it needs to be blown up with a vengeance. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:23, 16 March 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 List of characters in The Railway Series#Percy (NWR 6). Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Percy the Small Engine

AfDs for this article:
Percy the Small Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Character is not notable enough for its own article. After a search of I could not find anything that would pass GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 18:42, 15 March 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 List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters. Editors can Merge any content they believe is appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hector the Bulldog

Hector the Bulldog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Normally I would redirect this article to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters, but I do not think that would be appropriate because not only does the single source only mention this character in passing, but the article itself mentions more than one possible name for the character. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 12:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list. No indication of notability shown. The multiple names can likely just be redirected to the given section, with whatever name is the most used (In this case, likely Hector) being the primary one. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:32, 19 March 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. Given the sources found, there is a consensus now to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spaghetti Taco

Spaghetti Taco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't deserve it's own article- It only appeared in five episodes and has no notable significance. I think this article should be deleted. WizardGamer775 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete this isn't a notable character The Trash Compactor (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE. — Maile (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 29 March 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scion (comics)

Scion (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comic series, short-lived (4-years), unreferenced since 2007, my BEFORE failed to find anything useful. Fails WP:GNG, WP:V. If nobody can rescue this, potential redirects targets per WP:ATD-R: [[ Mark Alessi]] (co-creator), CrossGen (publisher). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, that's the same issue I was running into looking for sources - there are a number of sources discussing CrossGen as a whole, but the only coverage in them on Scion, in specific, was usually only very brief mentions. If not a whole article on the Sigilverse, perhaps expanding CrossGen#Sigilverse to be more than just a list of the titles included in it could work as well? Rorshacma (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've nominted this on pl wiki (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2024:03:11:Dziedzic (komiks)). One editor there found a source: [42]/[43] which has a passing mention of this, which I'l quote fully - it is just two sentences, but it has a bit of analysis/reception: One of the most intriguing epic fantasies was CrossGen’s Scion , which began in 2000 and ended abruptly in 2004 with the demise of the publisher. Th e story combines romance and politics, as a prince and princess from opposing dynasties fall in love but also fi ght for the freedom of the “lesser races.”. Perhaps we can save this? Nomnation, passing assessment in SIGCOV but relible source? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I believe the secondary sources listed here and in the article in total allow to write a reasoable article and therefore fulfill the notability requirements. The Publishers Weekly reviews can complement the relatively brief referenced reception section we already have. Daranios (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help if those editors commenting in this discussion offered their opinion on what should happen to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - In order to help build a consensus, I am going to go ahead and recommend a Keep for this current discussion, with no prejudice against a subsequent discussion for any potential Mergers. While the sources are still pretty scarce, there is enough that outright Deletion is out of the question, and simply redirecting without some kind of Merge would not really be appropriate. The series might still warrant being merged to a broader topic about CrossGen or the Silverse, as discussed, but that possibility can be decided outside of the current AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 19:38, 25 March 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 no consensus‎. As regards keep or merge; there is consensus to not delete. A new merger discussion can be started if desired. Sandstein 19:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tachyons in fiction

AfDs for this article:
Tachyons in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like many 'in fiction' and like topics, there is a chance this is a notable topic (a good one, given sources like [44]). Unfortunately, our current execution is simply terrible. Just three footnotes. A WP:OR prose opening with no source, followed by a gigantic list of random works that mention this topic that fails WP:IPC/MOS:TRIVIA. This needs to be rewritten from scratch, as nothing here is rescuable, or in other words, this merits a WP:TNT treatment, although a WP:ATD-R alternative is to redirect this to Tachyon#In_fiction, from which it was spun long time ago. The short section there is at least referenced, if poorly - but still better than what we have here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Popular culture, and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Keep until and unless the nomination statement is amended to remove references to the manual of style. MOS is for how we present information, not what information to be presented. Thus, any AfD nomination statement which makes reference to the MOS does not support deletion. Ping me if it's corrected. Jclemens (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not correct. The nomination statement supports deletion due to issues such as OR. As well as failure of WP:V. And from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections: "Other policies apply. Trivia sections found in other publications outside Wikipedia (such as IMDb) may contain speculation, rumor, invented "facts", or even libel. However, trivia sections (and others) in Wikipedia articles must not contain those, and their content must be maintained in accordance with Wikipedia's other policies. An item's degree of potential public interest will not excuse it from being subject to rules like verifiability, neutral point-of-view, or no original research." And this article fails all of those (well, NPOV, perhaps not so much). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Every issue you cite from the MOS is correctable by editing, proving my point that MOS arguments are irrelevant to deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If by editing you mean blanking, I do not see a difference. And how else are we supposed to fix it? By sourcing? Well, most of the content here is unlikely to be sourceable to anything reliable and will need to be deleted, as rewrites time and again have shown (rewrites of similar topics done by me or User:TompaDompa, fo rexample). Right now we have an unsourced, ORish collection of trivia that needs to go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) MOS:POPCULT says Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources (e.g., a dictionary or encyclopedia). A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item. This is a restatement of WP:PROPORTION for a specific context. TompaDompa (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. The article itself has severe no issues. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Frankly, I'm surprised the tachyons article has such extensive, decent sourcing. We don't need an article about a fictional particle's appearances in media, it can be covered in a few sentences in the tachyon article. I'm not seeing notability for this fork. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The WP:OR/WP:V problem can be solved by cutting out the relatively small part in the introductory section which is not based on either secondary or primary sources (while probably most of what's based on primary sources there is better suited further down). The abundant sources found in the Google Books search both show that the topic is notable and can be used to go through the article, fulfilling the suggestions of MOS:POPCULT quoted above and trimming the rest of the examples. In my personal experience, the current list of appearances (bad because it lacks secondary sources and commentary) can be helpful in looking for more appropriate secondary sources if someone is willing to put in the effort. So failing that, I'd prefer a merge to deletion, so that on the one hand the list is at least preserved in the history for future improvement, and on the other hand the meager content supported by the three existing secondary sources can be used to the improve the even more meager content supported by one secondary source at Tachyon#In fiction. Daranios (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have removed material that lacked proper sourcing. Two sentences remain. If somebody feels up to the task of expanding the article during the course of the WP:AfD discussion based on proper sources that would be great, though I don't personally anticipate finding the time to do so. Failing that, I don't see much of a case for keeping a stand-alone article as opposed to redirecting/merging to Tachyon#In fiction—expansion can always be done at the latter and a split performed at a later stage. The material that was removed can be viewed via the article history, should anybody find that useful for locating sources as Daranios suggested above—though I would add that in my experience, that approach tends to skew the balance of WP:ASPECTS away from the relative weight given by sources on the overarching topic and towards the biases of Wikipedia's editors. TompaDompa (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, I've taken a cursory look at a handful of sources and added some of them to Tachyons in fiction#Further reading. Going by those sources, authors (even when ostensibly discussing tachyons in a science fiction context) focus on tachyons as a theoretical concept much more than as a fictional one, and the principal tachyon-related work of fiction seems to be Gregory Benford's Timescape (1980). These sources could probably be used to write at least a bit more on the topic; the article is well and truly a stub at the moment. TompaDompa (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You deleted almost the entire article. This was a list of tachyons in fiction, just didn't have the "list of" in its name. You should've just let it be deleted at AFD if it was decided it shouldn't exist, instead of deleting it while the AFD was still going. Dream Focus 16:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I cleaned the article up so it could be (1) improved unencumbered by the dead weight of material that would for lack of proper sourcing need to removed regardless, or alternately (2) merged without removing that same material during or after the merge. This is a tried-and-tested way of improving these kinds of articles; see WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture, WP:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster in popular culture (2nd nomination), and WP:Articles for deletion/Time viewer for examples of similar articles I have cleaned up and rewritten during AfD discussions. Improvement is preferable to deletion and it seems unlikely that the outcome of this discussion would have been "delete" rather than at minimum "redirect" anyway. You should welcome this approach. TompaDompa (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a list it obviously failed WP:NLIST. Where else outside Wikipedia and possibly TV Tropes can one find a "list of works in fiction that mention the word tachyon"? This was unencyclopedic fancruft. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A List of tachyons in fiction on the other hand, meaning relevant appearances of tachyons in fiction as attested by secondary sources, would fulfill WP:NLIST! As usual, I would have gone around the other way and would have first referenced, then trimmed, but sourcing, adding commentary and trimming are relevant steps to solve indicated problems. So for me the question is if a prose article, such as it has been started now, can support all relevant instances, or if a complementary list, the better version of what we had before, might be beneficial. I could envision both cases. Daranios (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A good approximation for when a list article on these kinds of fiction-related topics might be beneficial in addition to a prose article is "never". There is no need for a prose article to support all relevant instances, what it needs to do is present the information in line with WP:PROPORTION, i.e. treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. A list article still needs to do that, but also needs to have proper WP:LISTCRITERIA that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Experience tells us that the list format itself encourages the addition of content that lacks proper sourcing. This is likely because of an impulse to get the list closer to being "complete"/exhaustive, but without any consideration of relative importance to the overall topic doing so of course does not result in a proper list article but more of an index or catalogue—something more appropriate for TV Tropes or Wikia/Fandom (or possibly a category).
    Regarding the more general case: I try to imagine what a WP:Featured list of that kind would look like, and I keep running into a few problems, mainly where to put the threshold for inclusion and what/how much information to present about each entry. Both of those things need to reflect the sources on the topic and maintain a proper balance of WP:ASPECTS. I think it's pretty clear that in most cases we cannot present an exhaustive set of X in fiction/popular culture/whatever, so we need to establish some sort of inclusion (and perhaps also exclusion) criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources per WP:LISTCRITERIA. Likewise, each entry would need to provide sufficient context to explain how and why it is an example of X in fiction/popular culture/whatever that should appear on the list without being disproportionate either in the context of that particular entry or compared to other entries. All the while we need to avoid performing any editorial WP:ANALYSIS or interpretation of the works themselves. This would not, to put it mildly, be trivial, and it puts extremely high requirements on the sources. Such sources, I daresay, simply do not exist for these topics (or at least the majority of them). If we fundamentally cannot even in principle bring an article up to WP:Featured content standards, then we should not have such an article in the first place (which is not to say that the topic should not be covered on Wikipedia in some other form on some other article). On the other hand, we have no fewer than three WP:Featured articles on such topics: Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction, and Sun in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I might also add that WP:NLIST is neither uncomplicated nor uncontroversial. The exact text is Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources [...] There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. I would not say, for instance, that the "Tachyons" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction discusses the proposed list topic (be it called list of tachyons in fiction, list of appearances of tachyons in fiction, works of fiction featuring tachyons, or whatever) "as a group or set", though I would say that it discusses the overall topic tachyons in fiction in the general/abstract; others may disagree. TompaDompa (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would be one who'd disagree to the SF Encyclopedia article not discussing appearances of tachyons in fiction as a group. I would also be satisfied with the relatively simple, if not completely concise, list critereon to include any work where the use of tachyons is discussed by a reliable secondary source in non-trivial manner, i.e. beyond simply stating that they "mention the word tachyon", as Piotrus has phrased it. Having such a list near-complete (with regard to available secondary sources) and fine-balancing the extent of discussion of each appearance between and within secondary source would then be the, admittedly hard, work of someone wanting to get this to a featured list. Anyway, I personally am not planning on creating/spinning out/recreating from the old article such a list. I only want to add a bit more on the prose article and don't expect to reach any limit there. Daranios (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are possible inclusion criteria, though it needs must be said that they are very inclusive and would result in (what by the balance of the sources are) very minor examples going on the list along with the foremost ones. This is an example of what I mean by not considering the relative importance to the overall topic. As I said above, it becomes more of a catalogue or index than a meaningfully crafted list article. One might also, less charitably, describe it as an exercise in stamp collecting. I can't say I see the point in creating or indeed retaining this kind of uncurated list in mainspace (as opposed to on an external wiki, blog, or a self-maintaining category). It is, to be frank, a recipe for extremely poor content, one step up from WP:Original research, and in essence a collection of raw data without the proper contextual information. Why we would ever want to take that approach, when we know how to create quality content on these kinds of topics by writing prose articles, is beyond me. It is, well, precisely what the essay WP:CARGO warns against. TompaDompa (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Side note: while I enjoy such articles and would like to see them preserved at TV Tropes in a systematic manner, I don't see how they are "one step up" from OR - they are pure OR, unreferenced stamp collecting :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The objections raised by TompaDompa notwithstanding, I was describing a sourced version, so not OR. Daranios (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably worth noting that sourced material can also constitute WP:Original research, for instance through WP:Improper editorial synthesis. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research, as our policy says. TompaDompa (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's a possible case/danger of OR, but again not really what was discussed above. Daranios (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're getting increasingly off-topic here, but suffice it to say that creating lists can be OR even when the entries themselves are sourced. It depends on how it's done. TompaDompa (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tachyon#In fiction - Remove the massive, poorly sourced example farm, which is the whole reason why this needed to be split out into a separate article in the first place, and what's left is a small section of sourced information that can be easily covered at the main article on Tachyons, and would actually be a more helpful way of presenting that information to readers due to the added context of the rest of the article explaining what the theoretical particle actually is. Rorshacma (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per Rorschacma. Once you remove the poorly sourced list of examples, WP:NOPAGE is appropriate here. There isn't very much to say, but a very brief summary could appear as an WP:ATD. I would be fine with plain deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rorshacma, Shooterwalker, and Zxcvbnm: I don't care too strongly about keep or merge and split out again when appropriate, but still would like to point out that we have a decent paragraph after only a fraction of the secondary sources listed at the article and popping up in the Google Books search have been used. So while providing added context of the rest of the article explaining what the theoretical particle actually is remains as an argument, the amount of content here is insufficient for a split only describes the current state, not the source material, and There isn't very much to say seem incorrect to me. Daranios (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping! Personally, I would still advocate for Merger, simply because of the WP:NOPAGE argument. I think it would greatly benefit readers' understanding of the topic if this information was presented as part of the same article that actually explains what tachyons are, and neither article is so long that length would be an issue. Rorshacma (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing. The article I nominated [45] was a very different beast from what we have now (effectively rewritten from scratch, mostly by TompaDompa). As such, I am withdrawing my nomination and ping everyone who voted so they can reconsider their votes (IMHO we can consider merger but it is not necessary and keeping in the current state is preferrable, and I'd prefer to retain the old history of the article as well). @Shooterwalker, TompaDompa, Daranios, Dream Focus, Jclemens, Oaktree b, and Georgethedragonslayer: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't really take credit for most of the rewrite here—I removed the old unsourced material and located a few usable sources, but the new material was all added by Daranios (and some of it was then copyedited by me). TompaDompa (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is in much better shape now, but even at the time of nomination I would day that it was better than nothing and thus not a proper candidate for TNT. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tachyon. After cleanup, the amount of content here is insufficient for a split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To determine whether to keep this now-stub or to merge it as proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Tachyon article improved per WP:HEY, but given its lightness, might be better served as a topic on Tachyon
MiniMayor98 (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ben Azura: I'd say there is difference in nature between a scientific hypothesis and a piece of fiction like Unobtainium. Daranios (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I change my vote to Keep based on the cleanup work done during AfD and Piotrus withdrawing the nomination. Ben Azura (talk) 10:07, 23 March 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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Fictional_elements&oldid=1215119053"