Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

Related deletion sorting

Fictional elements[edit]

Aiden Pearce[edit]

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

Unfortunately, after doing WP:BEFORE; I don't see any SIGCOV for this character at all and it mostly relies on game reviews at reception. Detailed issue has been shared at the article's talk page alreadyby other user. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment have you tried merging this into a Characters of Watch Dogs article? Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Watch Dogs (video game) exist. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article for the game itself existing doesn't disqualify the idea of a characters list. Now whether enough coverage for the other characters exists or not is a different story. λ NegativeMP1 15:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is news sources showing wider coverage, some of which have been provided on the talk page and are in the process of being incorporated into the article. This is by no means the least notable of it's kind so a deletion discussion so soon seems like a rash decision. This can be, at worst, made into a characters of Watch Dogs article like Jclemens has already suggested.

TheBritinator (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who brought those sources to the talk page, and those aren't WP:SIGCOV, but I understand that you're still quite new to WP:VG's notability. This is not like other fictional characters; when there are reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Not seeing any significant coverage here, and the article is primarily sourced entirely to reviews. Not showing independent notability from the subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Brown Jr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. The little significant coverage mentioning this character is not about the character itself, rather focusing on the show at large. -Samoht27 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Comics and animation. -Samoht27 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in the Family Guy franchise#Cleveland_Brown_Jr. - The sources currently in the article are extremely weak, either being primary, or a couple sentences from an interview. Searches did not turn up much better - the character is mentioned in general coverage of the show(s) he appeared in, but nothing close to any kind of significant coverage that would justify a independent article. A general overview of both the fictional and real world history of the character is already included in the main franchise character list, so this should be Redirected there. Rorshacma (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. This doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, but there is a valid WP:ATD and redirect target here. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurien Gardner[edit]

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

Neither a redirect to Hoyt nor to Ginjer Buchanan, where neither the imprint nor this three book series appears to merit mention makes sense, so bringing this here. The books don't appear to have merited note as a series,and there's no indication this use of a pen name was. Star Mississippi 19:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Fictional elements, and England. Star Mississippi 19:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Numberguy6 (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not convinced the subject meets the notability criteria for a Wikipedia article. Waqar💬 17:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find enough WP:SIGCOV for this one. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King Grayskull[edit]

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

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this page to King Grayskull's section in List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. A quick online search doesn't show this character is notable. Moreover, from my understanding, he's a pretty minor character in the franchise to begin with. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Cat[edit]

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

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demona[edit]

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

The only sigcov source here[1] and a bit useful IGN source [2] still doesn't pass WP:GNG with the demonstrated sources. The best thing is to merge it into a list of characters. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Section Move. I find it strange that this character ends up having her own page in this website, so I agree that the majority of the information in Demona's separate article should be merged in the list of Gargoyle characters. Anonymy365248 (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's a decades-old character who is still popular today and has appeared in different forms of media including games and comics. --DrBat (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSPOPULAR 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 23:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"But without a single reliable source to verify its existence or accuracy, there is no way it can be included" doesn't apply here. DrBat (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm not sure what I'm gonna respond to you. Show me more sources like Mary Sue that really doscuss the character in detail for it to prove that she's really notable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's this article, this interview, and this video. --DrBat (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already brought up the IGN source. Demona is just a passing mention from the AV club source + that youtube source is unreliable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The av club one has a whole section of the interview about the character, it's hardly a passing mention. --DrBat (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I missed this sorry, but we don't usually call this WP:SIGCOV as a source somehow since Demona wasn't discussed as a character but as an interview to voice her in a short detail. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – To List of Gargoyles characters. Fails in WP:GNG for a WP:SPLIT. Svartner (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Gargoyles characters#Demona or keep. I am on the fence if there is enough coverage in secondary sources for a stand-alone article, but we have a reception section based on one here, which is not present at the target. So clearly both deletion and redirection would be a loss for the encyclopedic coverage as compared to the situation now. A merge is even suggested in the nomination. Daranios (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toko'yoto[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a merge/redirect to Chukchi people. toweli (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Russia. toweli (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 6 June 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology of The Librarian[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT; WP:OR. Characters aleady included in their own article. --wooden superman 12:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Television, and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a pretty clear cut "Wikipedia is not FANDOM" issue. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first half of the article is just a bunch of links all leading to the actual character list for the franchise at List of The Librarian characters, and the second half is just unsourced plot material. I'm not finding much in the way of coverage in reliable sources that actually discuss the mythology or lore of the franchise, so the topic fails the WP:GNG as well. Rorshacma (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as appropriate to The Librarian (franchise), the WP:SS parent, as an ATD. I see no rationale articulated in either the nomination or prior !votes that would prohibit or deprecate such an ATD. Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What exactly from this article would be appropriate to upmerge here? The characters are already covered both on the main article as a chart, and in more detail in the separate List of The Librarian characters. Likewise, the main article already has a small section on the "Mythology of the Librarian" that gives a brief overview of the topic. And on top of that, there are essentially no source, even primary ones, being cited here to support any of the information being presented. The rationale for prohibiting that as an ATD is simply because there is nothing that would be appropriate to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rorshacma. There is nothing to merge to The Librarian (franchise). Walsh90210 (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. Unreliable sources in most cases, and nothing to merge. Fails WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's all in-universe details without sourcing so there's nothing worth upmerging that isn't already there. hinnk (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The entire article is little more than a collection of original research. There is nothing worth preserving here. Furthermore, the title is a bit too unusual to work as a plausible search term. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:00, 8 June 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.

Slowpoke Rodriguez[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with the article's main source being primarily about Speedy Gonzales. List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters is partially incomplete and putting the info there would help to fill out that article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see that a merge was tried (and the talk page discussion on this is ancient), and certainly wouldn't revert one myself if I saw it. Does this really need to be at AfD? Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I consider any character article too controversial to just boldly merge, so to preempt that I don't see what's wrong about AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom; not a suitable stand-alone article. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrigan Aensland[edit]

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

Genuinely so surprised to find that this article literally has nothing in the way of Reception. I took on the task of cleaning out the very outdated and over bloated Reception, and when I was done trimming out trivial mentions and unreliable sources, I found practically nothing left over. I performed an extensive BEFORE in the hopes of finding something to salvage this article, but there is genuinely nothing out there bar trivial mentions from stuff like CBR. In the article's current state I'm really not seeing enough to meet the GNG, and I'd suggest a merge or redirect to the Darkstalkers character list as an AtD. I'm genuinely so surprised there's nothing here, so if anyone can find anything I missed to improve this article, please feel free to share them, but right now I just don't think there's enough for an article here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 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) 23:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A reception section is not necessary for a fictional element to meet GNG. Can you comment on the plethora of other sourcing still present in the article? Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this. I've mentioned this to the nominator many times before but they never seem to hear me.. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate not being accused of ignoring advice, here, and I've been wary of that primarily after the Koopa Troopa debate. Akin to that article and other articles I've seen in similar situations, those articles had a demonstrated impact beyond or within their series (Koopa Troopa influencing the designs of many characters in the series, for example.) Morrigan has some decent conception information, yes, but there's nothing in her conception information really demonstrating an inherent importance to her series or beyond it, especially in conjunction with the real lack of overall Reception, hence why I nominated it. Pinging @Jclemens for this reasoning so they're notified of this reply, given that both of you had the same query. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the accusations, stop writing nominations that hinge so heavily on the lack of a reception section. Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reception is a major crux in showing the subject's notability. While conception and design info can greatly help with that, oftentimes it isn't enough. (For instance, I once worked on a draft for Celebi (Pokemon), and that article had fantastic conception information but nothing showing that Celebi actually made an impact on anything.) Reception needs to work in conjunction with design information to prove a subject's notability, and I have seen cases where this is the case (For instance, I recently got Mew (Pokémon) to Good Article, and that article's heavy amounts of developmental information in conjunction with its displayed cultural impact help demonstrate notability) but in the case of Morrigan, there's scraps of information in her Reception with a conception section that doesn't display that Morrigan impacted her series with her design (akin to Koopa Troopa) nor has there been extensive detail on the subject's development been published to a point where the development in and of itself is notable. I'm not saying the conception info here isn't bad, but what I am saying is that I'm not seeing enough for a separate article to be worthwhile when a more than valid AtD happens to exist. I will admit that past cases such as Shulk and Koopa Troopa turned out to be incorrect in terms of their consensus, but I have noted these past consensuses and adapted it into my overall philosophy with articles. If Morrigan had even a few sources more I'd believe her to be meeting the notability guideline, but in this case she just frankly isn't. I have concerns with your accusation not because I'm ignoring your advice, but because of the fact that I worry that you think I am. Just because I have had past AfDs with "Keep" consensuses should not immediately devalue this one solely on the grounds of the one who nominated it, especially since I have laid out my rationale in very extensive detail in response to both you and Jclemens's queries. Additionally, I would also appreciate that we keep to the discussion of the subject in question, as I feel continuing down this chain of response will only lead to us getting off topic, but I thought I'd at least make my stance clear for clarity's sake so this does not become an issue both for this discussion and for future discussions. If you have further concerns about this, I'd appreciate if we continue it on my user talk page, since an AfD is not the proper place for a discussion about editing practices that do not pertain to this discussion in question. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reception section is one, but not the only, way to demonstrate notability. Many, but not all, RS coverage could be shoehorned into a reception section. Hence me asking the clarifying question: is there no RS coverage that you believe to be suitable for a reception section, or no RS coverage at all? You wrote a nomination that didn't answer that question, and I'd still like to hear your thoughts on that, because at first blush there appears to be a lot of references in the article, most of which are not in the reception section. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused about what you're asking. Are you asking about if there are sources for Reception used in the plot summary? From what I can tell, most of them are just verifying plot information or something similar, and any conception info isn't valid for Reception in this case. I can take another look when I'm home if you want but when I looked I didn't really notice much in the way of anything helpful in there. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Darkstalkers series (and its media spin-offs) were at the height of their popularity from 1994 to c. 1998. I an not certain that there are recent sources on for a series that has not seen new entries for about 25 years. Dimadick (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely second this, but I admittedly was unable to find much in the way of coverage in a peruse of Archive.org, and any other form of accessing sourcing or magazine coverage from that time period is inaccessible to me. There may be coverage, but the existence of it cannot be ascertained unless other editors bring them to light. If significant coverage in those kinds of source is found, I'd definitely be willing to reconsider my stance, but I unfortunately cannot confirm the existence of these potential sources at this time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Darkstalkers characters. Could not really find any SIGCOV besides this, but there is a perfectly fine WP:ATD. However, deleting nearly the entire reception before nominating is considered something of a "cover-up" and not encouraged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I wasn't really intending anything of the sort, as I was intending to just clean up the article before I realized the lack of any actual coverage in there. I will assure you that the stuff I removed wasn't really doing much for the article, in any case, and if any editor wishes to take a look at the sources in the old state of the article, they can be found here. For the most part, it was primarily trivial mentions and sources of questionable authenticity (Practically of all of which were not really helpful either way). Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999 "I will assure you that the stuff I removed wasn't really doing much for the article" I disagree with you strongly (and I am a deletionist). Please do not remove such content ever again outside AfD, or without providing detailed explanation on talk why a particular source is unreliable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, I am willing to do an analysis on each source I removed from the article. I am more than willing to justify my stance on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm @Pokelego999 This is... bad. If the article is kept, I ask Pokelago999 to restore the removed content. What was wrong, for example, with " In 1996, Mean Machines Sega described her as "one of the most bewitching girl characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women!"" sourced to "Mean Machines Sega 40 (February 1996), pages 18–20."? @Daranios in case you have not seen this (plenty of interesting sources there). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Half of these sources were using trivial mentions putting up a semblance of notability when coverage really isn't there. For instance, the article you're citing seems to really be only a sentence in terms of actual commentary. Looking at the magazine in particular, the text states "A succubus, or demon, who feeds on human blood while hiding in beautiful female form, Morrigan is one of the most bewitching characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women! Given the chance, she reveals her less attractive batty form. Specialty attacks include creating mirror images of herself, and blasting across the screen on a beam of fire." and nothing more. For the most part this is relatively minor, with only the cited sentence really amounting to much. At most, all that can be cited is "in beautiful female form, Morrigan is one of the most bewitching characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women!" which is at most an extension of one sentence coverage, aka the standard definition of a trivial mention. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While that source is not very relevant for notability (due to SIGCOV) it is very relevant to the content. IF the article is kept, this, and likely most if not all of what you have removed, should be restored. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if it isn't relevant, why did you vote keep? You only provided two sources to prove notability, one of which doesn't apply to notability, and then didn't specify what other sources counted as SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Unless sourcing is found, per Zx. I went through the sources as shown in the article's history, and and extensively through WP:BEFORE. I *rewrote* the entire dev section on this article even. But I don't think Pokelego's reasoning is wrong here: when you look at what's actually being said here, and the context, it's not there or at least hasn't been found. Even the Troopa article had some footing on how it changed with the Mario series and affected it, and that'd been lost. Here anything major can be summed up for the list or series article I feel.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM I feel it's important to note too that this is one of Niemti/Snake's articles, an editor known for refbombing, overblowing sources, or outright fabricating information. The dev section alone before I rewrote it was a bit of a wreck in that regard, so reference count should not be considered as proof.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content of this source [3] to list since the character didn't passed WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source mentioned by Zxcvbnm together with the Kotaku article (which is about one sculpture representation, but also about the character as a whole) and the shorter treatment in this academic article, as well as many other shorter comments in my view fullfill the miniumum requirements of WP:GNG and allow to write a non-stubby article which fullfills the requirements of both WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT. Also e.g. some commentary in the Gameplay section amounts to reception even if it is under a different heading for reasons of coherence. Failing that, I would obviously prefer a merge as WP:ATD compared to deletion. Daranios (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: The mention of Morrigan in the academic article is solely listing her as an example of an erotic devil and not saying anything about that depiction other than briefly stating what a succubus is supposed to be. Additionally the sources under gameplay fall under game guide, and are strictly relating to how the character played in those particular title. To boot, if you look at these articles, they are done for all characters there, not individually just for her. If that counted as SIGCOV, we'd have articles for every Pokemon.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: If you would like to have sources with Morrigan as the main topic, which is not required by WP:GNG, there would be the two-page book chapter and the Kotaku web article, thus two sources for the bare minium of "multiple sources". The academic article talks about the iconography represented by Morrigan, I'll add what I see there to the article when I have time. Sources under game play descibe the game play, but there are also things like she's a "balanced character" "but doesn't stand out", which are clearly value judgements, i.e. reception. Otherwise things boil down to the usual discussion: That sources should not "count" for notability if they do not have long or exclusive treatment of the topic is an interpretation of WP:SIGCOV which I do not share. To the contrary my interpretation is that multiple short treatments collectively can form significant coverage, but of course only if said coverage is not trivial. That then is the something one can argue about, like the fact that someone had added source to the article thinking them worthwhile, while Pokelego999 has removed many in the good faith assumption that said coverage was trivial. So far I have only looked at the remaining sources after that clean-up. Daranios (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: I'm all down for a "Death by 1000 Cuts" approach, but sources still have to be saying something and offering some sort of analysis to satisfy SIGCOV. There still needs to be something that illustrates discussion that warrants an encyclopedic article. "Morrigan is a succubus" and nothing more in an article academic or otherwise isn't that. I get trying to save an article, but you can't by calling molehills mountains.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: Thanks for improving the content from "Lilith en la cultura audiovisual". I think what we have there now is indeed something (I've never claimed it was very long). So my opinion remains that there is enough non-trivial material based on secondary sources available to write a non-stubby article, and what we already have in this regard in the article now would be akwardly much if pressed into the current format of List of Darkstalkers characters. Thus I still prefer keep over merge. Daranios (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: I strongly feel you are giving that source undue weight: it's not an examination of her as a character, or even commentary of, it's simply observing she's a succubus in modern media. It is borderline trivial, and nothing would be lost by the article being merged (unlike the Koopa Troopa article above).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: I believe the two sentences added are suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia which has no space limit as in WP:NOTPAPER, I do not find this look into the creative origins trivial. That's all the weight I give that one source. Daranios (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in Kotaku ([4], [5]), plus other sources (granted, many don't meet SIGCOV) should be enough. She is a classic icon in anime and manga fandom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just being well known isn't enough for an article- debates such as Diddy Kong, King K. Rool, and Pit have shown as much. Additionally, one of the sources you cite here is CBR, which per WP:VALNET, bears no weight on notability in discussions such as these. The Kotaku source is... a figurine review? Admittedly the first paragraph is nice but the rest is the author criticizing fan artists and describing how good a figurine looks, which really doesn't discuss Morrigan much at all. As you stated above, most of the other sources don't meet SIGCOV. There really aren't many strong sources, if at all, to support this. Per my above comment, I'm willing to give an in-depth source analysis on every single source I removed to prove my point further. There's really just nothing here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective impression that a character is well known isn't enough for an article. But if secondary sources talk about this, like the Kotaku source does ("one of the most widely depicted characters in video games", very popular in cosply), then that is exactly what the notability requirement asks for. So, yeah, the Kotaku article does review a figure, which is well within the scope of this topic, but the same article additionally discusses the character as a whole. Daranios (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For about one paragraph, yes. The rest of the content, per my above comment, is mostly unusable as it does not pertain to Morrigan's character. I believe the paragraph, is, as you said, usable, but that's really all that can be taken from the Kotaku source. Even then, it really only notes that the character is popular, which isn't enough to support the article itself, given that there are only one (debatably two) other sources in the Reception contributing to notability. I concur with KFM on the subject of the book being pretty trivial since it's really only a two sentence comparison to another character stating their designs are similar. I can't speak on "500 Essential Anime Movies: The Ultimate Guide" since I lack access to it, but an article that's just a paragraph of people saying "she's popular" with no commentary plus one or two additional sources really doesn't have enough to justify a separation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given that editors are getting hung up over the removal of sources in my cleanup, I've elected to go over each removed source in this comment. This should hopefully allow for clarity on the reasons each of these sources do not aid Morrigan's notability.

-"Go On, Let Morrigan Drive You Batty" from Kotaku really only states "Since debuting in 1994 Darkstalkers: The Night Warriors, Morrigan Aensland has become one of gaming's most iconic characters. A fan service favorite, Morrigan continues to attract cosplayers, eager to put on succubus's revealing outfit..." the rest is just the author critiquing fan cosplays. This is basically a trivial mention given that, in basic terms, it's just saying "She's iconic and popular in cosplay." It can be used to bolster the point of the prior Kotaku article mentioned above by Daranios and Piotrus, but given how weak it is- and the fact that is three paragraphs and a swarm of links to random cosplays- its overall commentary is minimal.

-The "Mean Machines Sega 40" source, which Piotrus brought up earlier, has this one sentence summary of Morrigan being popular. Thing is, it only acknowledges that she's popular in cosplay, and she isn't even the sole focus, with Felicia also being brought up. A look at the source reveals no more than this. Frankly, this is a very trivial mention given how brief it is, especially given it isn't even specifically about Morrigan.

-I can't access the UGO source given it's a dead link like all other UGO sources, but given it seems to be an easter egg video for Scott Pilgrim, I'd assume the commentary is a rather minimal explanation of a cameo appearance in the game. At most it can really only be used to additionally verify the "she's popular" claim.

-"Top 15 sexiest characters to cosplay" is exactly the kind of commentary Wikipedia needs. But yeah, sarcasm aside, this basically just says "Morrigan is sexy" in a single sentence of a top fifteen listicle. Trivial mention in a nutshell.

-This Destructoid source is a brief, three-four paragraph article talking briefly about an upcoming figure, and unlike the Kotaku source, the reviewer barely comments on the figure in question. Again, just another brief thing saying "Morrigan is popular" with little to no substance.

-These sources for famous cosplay figures are... bizarre. The Nigri source is just a link to her Facebook page, the first Gosiengfago source is just a brief paragraph of how she likes cosplay and how Morrigan is one (among many) characters she enjoys cosplaying. I can't access the UNO Guam source but it seems to be owned by the same people who made the last Gosiengfago source. The Kotaku source is a brief couple paragraph blurb about how a photo of a Morrigan cosplay looked good. There's nothing on the character there bar verifying the fact that Gosiengfago cosplayed Morrigan. The first Le source is an interview, which is a primary source. The other Le source I can't access because of a pop-up for their newsletter or whatever it is... which seems to indicate the site itself is really iffy, but I can't ascertain reliability per the pop-up. The G4tv source is labelled as a blog but seems to be a staff writer which is confusing, but either way is really only a sentence or two of commentary at most. The first Meritt source is a trivial mention briefly discussing how she did Morrigan once. The second Meritt source seems to be a blog, while the third source mentions her for a sentence. The Bayonetta source mentions Morrigan once as a past cosplay with no additional commentary. While this kind of stuff is worth mentioning, there's a lot of very trivial mentions of it being roped in (Or straight up unreliable sources) being roped in that put undue weight onto this part of the subject. You can very likely trim this down to just a sentence saying "Several notable people have cosplayed Morrigan..." and leave it at that, though even then there's a lot of sources that need trimming first.

-Second usage of the same Mean Machines source which I've gone over above already.

-The two sources following Mean Machines- ""ベストキャラクター賞" [Best Character Award]. Gamest (212): 102. 30 January 1998." and "SSM 25/1997, page 125." are both random listicle rankings that place her rather low on it overall. There's not really any value in these sources and they're the exact type of thing that wouldn't be acceptable in an article these days.

-Famitsu source is the same as above, except this time it's literally just her name in a column and nothing else.

-I can't access the "muses" source, even via Wayback/Archive, but it seems like a rather trivial listicle given it's a top twenty for a niche subject.

-The Girls of Gaming source I can't access, but it seems minor overall given it's an introductory quote not even entirely about Morrigan. If you can find this one do let me know so I can take a look at it.

-The Kotaku source following this literally has all of its commentary summed up by what's quoted in the old version, that being "I've always found Morrigan a fascinating character. Darkstalkers is a fairly obscure series, one which few people will have played on a regular basis, and yet Morrigan is always front and centre when it comes to fan art and cosplay." Aka, it's one sentence of coverage in a three paragraph long article which is literally just the author sharing a cool piece of Morrigan fanart they found on DeviantArt.

-EGM Source seems to literally just be "Morrigan had a baby named after them" which is cool I guess but very much trivia and not even that uncommon among videogame characters.

-The GamesRadar source about Morrigan and Chun-Li in Project x Zone is not even entirely about Morrigan and just reiterates that she's popular and nothing more. The fact the bit quoted had to link Chun-Li in the quote for it to make sense is telling.

-The GamesRadar top thirty source mentions Morrigan as part of Felicia's description. Morrigan isn't even ranked on the list.

-The GameSpot source's entire text is "From the Capcom side, this week we're featuring everybody's favorite succubus, Morrigan. Hailing from the Darkstalkers universe, Morrigan has been a mainstay in the Capcom crossover fighting games and is definitely a fan favorite. Morrigan's default costume is perfect for her personality: somewhere between a batlike demon and a charming lover. The purple and teal are great colors to work from." Which is... very minimal. It, again, boils down to "she's popular" and I guess one sentence on color cohesion? Will note this whole source is mostly just summarizing alt colors for an upcoming fighting game, and that Morrigan wasn't even the only character being described, with Deadpool being directly before her, for example, with similarly trivial commentary.

-Again, I can't find or access the "play" sources, so I can't assess their notability, but given that they are summarized with zero quotes or anything, keeping them around is very much not a weight on notability unless their contents can be found and assessed.

-The Crunchyroll source is just the author making one sentence commentary on various pieces of fanart- and not all of them are about Morrigan. Very much a trivial mention.

-GamesTM is a standard "Why did this character get in instead of x and x" thing that happens every time a fighting game roster is fully revealed. Very much a trivial mention, especially since it isn't even exclusively Morrigan who is brought up here.

-The We Love Golf source is cool trivia but not much more.

-The Kotaku source following this mentions Morrigan once in the whole article. This is the most trivial mention trivial mention I've ever seen.

-I can't even access where Morrigan is in the Game Informer source due to the link expiring. Due to the fact that the link's stuck with a broken archive link, it's impossible to ascertain the notability of this source, but this seems to be a standard list akin to "twenty characters we'd like to see in the next Smash game" kind of deal. Not impossible for commentary but it seems unlikely.

-Complex source is a weak listicle per others above. The second complex link literally mentions Morrigan once in the whole article with no additional commentary.

-The only commentary I can glean from the GamesRadar listicle is "This sultry succubus is one of fighting games leading ladies, striking a balance between the dignified seriousness of Chun-Li and the hyper-sexualized cleavage-heaving antics of Mai Shiranui. Granted, Morrigans ridiculously revealing costume seems like it could slip off at any moment." The rest is plot summary and appearance summaries, and the second sentence of this quote is just "she has skimpy clothing" which really doesn't count as valid commentary.

-Third Complex source is another listicle per the others above.

-I can't speak on Gamenguide's popularity, but in the case of the article, it's literally just saying "She's popular because a Darkstalkers game just came out and strong in competitive" with a one sentence statement saying she's iconic. Really only is able to verify the above two "popularity" and "iconic" points more than anything else.

-Crunchyroll source after this is a figure review with one sentence of commentary on Morrigan, being "Morrigan Aensland is a perennial Darkstalkers favorite, and for good reason. She's gorgeous, powerful, and all-around awesome." which is the definition of a trivial mention.

-Do I even have to explain why 3/4 of the "sex appeal" articles are unreliable? You can take a look if you want but most of them are trivial rankings or listicles about how Morrigan is sexy and whatnot. It's very unprofessional and doesn't even have much significant commentary.

-A Top 50 listicle about "chicks behaving badly" offers very little real commentary on Morrigan.

-Morrigan isn't even mentioned in the following GamesRadar source, she's just included as part of an image collage alongside who knows how many other characters. This article is more about Chell (Portal) than anything else.

-The next two listicles really explain themselves. Following this, most of the sources there fall into similar pitfalls of "Really random thing tangentially related to Morrigan and how she was brought up in an oddly specific listicle." There's really nothing in any of them and they all lack substance. The Game Revolution source is literally just an April Fool's joke they did that doesn't even comment on Morrigan, and instead is just a joke.

-The entire paragraph on her cartoon appearance are all trivial mentions, primarily sourced to season reviews that are barely about her.

I feel you could maybe squeeze some stuff out of the celebrity cosplayers bit if you tried but that doesn't really help with notability when nearly every other source surrounding it boils down to a trivial mention or sources that just aren't valuable commentary in the slightest. Do ping me if anyone disagrees with any assessments here and I'll be willing to elaborate on these in further detail, but I do hope this helps enlighten some of my thinking with removing these sources and why I feel they don't contribute to Morrigan's notability in a debate like this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just repeat what I wrote above, which is that while you are right that most of those sources "don't contribute to Morrigan's notability", they are relevant to the article, and if the article is kept, they shold be restored. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't contribute to notability then they don't contribute at all. Several of these per Pokelego's analysis above literally don't say anything: they're just images. And speaking frankly, I would've cleaned the hell out of this article if they hadn't, because I have had the unfortunate experience of doing that with Niemti's works.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Kung Fu Man above, if these don't contribute to notability, then how are they in anyway relevant to the notability of the subject in this discussion? We're not talking about what happens if this article is kept, we're talking about if it should be kept at all or not, and per above, the sources you've provided to prove it should be kept are very weak. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it's any help, I've found two scholarly sources on Morrigan. MoonJet (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the two, the first is questioning if it's reasonable for her to be sexually objectified because she's a succubus. It's brief but could be useful, however it's also just a student essay and Anette Holmström doesn't appear to have any credentials or publication history. The second after hunting it down is discussing how a cosplayer came to like the character and the various stages of understanding them. It's mainly framed through the cosplayer's recollection, but some tangible thoughts could be cited from the paper's observations of her statements and reactions as it's published. It could at least give the whole "she's popular in cosplay" thing a little bit of a leg to stand on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinions on the first source are akin to KFM's (It's pretty small, but it also has debatable weighting towards notability) while I am unable to access the second source. I trust KFM's judgement on the second source as potential elaboration on the cosplay point, but as I said I am unable to ascertain how much would be added, and if it would be trivial or substantial overall. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's been extensive argumentation from participants thus far, who are relatively evenly divided between merge and keep. Additional opinions from new participants would likely be the most useful contribution for establishing a consensus at this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris King and Vicki Grant[edit]

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

This article doesn't have reception or signification coverage about the character, and the hero forms section was written awfully or its fully redundant; thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because they were separated from the Dial H for Hero page by @Jhenderson777: to keep the page from getting too long like the Black Canary page or merge Chris King and his superhero forms to List of Marvel Comics characters: K and Vicki Grant and her superheroine forms to List of Marvel Comics characters: G in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE if the latter happens. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dial H for Hero#1980s series - There is nothing here except for excessively detailed, primary sourced, in-universe plot summary. And the entirety of the plot information here is already present, in more succinct form, at the main Dial H article. Pretty much the only information here that is not already included there is that ridiculously long list of "Hero Forms" and "Villains" that is completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE information that should not be included. There is no reason for this to have ever been split out to a separate article as the same information is already covered at the parent article, making this a redundant fork that should simply be redirect back to the appropriate section of the Dial H article. Rorshacma (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fantastic Beasts characters[edit]

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

There are two big issues: Firstly, there's no citations outside of the one character that already has his own page, Newt Scamander. Secondly, this is for a three-film series - so not really a huge body of work - and, outside of the main four or five characters, there's one or two sentences for each person. Worse, the articles on the films have cast lists with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters, so it's redundant as well (The main characters' longer bits just being the plot summaries of the films). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 23:27, 23 May 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 Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:CSC #2, no argument for deletion made that cannot be remedied by editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it rises to the level of notability where it can ever be sourced. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 04:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These articles a little weird if we are trying to go by consistency. List of Harry Potter characters exists, but that is for characters who appeared in any of the books, which a lot of these do not and are not mentioned in that article. There is also List of Fantastic Beasts cast members which compliments List of Harry Potter cast members (a featured list.) Maybe it might be beneficial to merge the two Fantastic Beasts articles since the cast members one is well sourced, while this one is not. Aspects (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not objecting to Fantastic Beasts having multiple articles, but the number of secondary articles on it seems vastly out of line with the material. Fantastic Beasts (film series) and the three film articles are sensible enough, Newt Scamander seems to have enough independant coverage - and crossover content between various things - that it's justified, but when you get to a list of the characters, and a cast list as a table without any context, it feels both redundant and weird. It feels like the cast list should be at the end of the article on the series, and the character list... well... it's really hard to see why that exists at all if this article the most we can come up with, and I don't think anything in it isn't in the cast sections of the articles for each film; indeed, I think those may be doing a slightly better job.

Harry Potter isn't a good guide to what should exist here, as that was a much, much bigger phenomenon than its spinoff, and, as a book series, had both a lot more characters than could plausibly fit in a plot summary and a lot more development and recurrence of minor characters (and Rowling talked a lot more about the development of those characters in interviews). Films just don't have the depth of books, and, if there's material about secondary characters that got left out of the films, as far as I'm aware, it's not reported on.

And, of course, Harry Potter in particular had a lot more secondary sources that went into detail about every character; Fantastic Beasts doesn't have anything like that depth of coverage. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel there has to be a merge target as an WP:ATD for this. The one suggested above seems less intuitive than if the main article had a characters section. Perhaps each individual film should have a characters section? Conyo14 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They already do, is the thing, with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters. And it covers pretty much all the information on this page except for the main cast, who are redundant to the plot summary. If I've missed that one doesn't appear, by all means copy it over. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 13:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Fantastic Beasts cast members. I think there is enough to write about these characters, both as a group and individually, based on pop culture sources like [6], [7], and scholarly sources like here and many others. While it is indeed a problem that there are almost no references, this can easily be addressed through normal editing by using such secondary non-independent book-length sources like Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: Character Guide or Harry Potter: Characters of the Wizarding World. The latter also sets a precedent for a possible merge with List of Harry Potter characters, if a collective treatment is somehow seen as beneficial. (Which would pose the naming problem, where surly there can be a compromise if needed.) No strong opinion on that particular question. List of Fantastic Beasts cast members to me seems to have less content, so this could be merged here, discussion on the name notwithstanding. Or that list could be merged to Fantastic Beasts, as suggested this discussion, leaving the our list here with solvable problems to solve. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further pop culture sources, if somewhat focussed on a specific film of the series would be [8], [9], and with a fun bit of analysis, [10]. So again, that there is not enough sourcing to constitute an article does not at all seem to be the case. Daranios (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it feels redundant to the film articles, and there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article, but, well, sure. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article: On the one hand I think that's a valid concern, seeing that some articles stay tagged and unimproved for long periods of time. But on the other hand I think that is the basic premise of Wikipedia, and the project is immensly successful! So I prefer to err on the side of hope in accordance with WP:There is no deadline and especially WP:Work in progress. Daranios (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, but I think when the article's a spinoff that has redundant information to other articles at present, it's perhaps more of a question. As it stands, it's just the character lists already in the three films, but as an unreferenced, alphabetised list. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Please do not turn List of Fantastic Beasts cast members into a Redirect as that article is being discussed as a possible Merge target article which can't occur if the page is a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but do note the entirety of List of Fantastic Beasts cast members is merged to Fantastic Beasts now, so unless we do combine, should redirect. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Fantastic Beasts cast members. The two subjects can be elegantly merged, and together there is less question about notability. Malinaccier (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. See no reason why not to. Only the same characters. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Malinaccier and Hyperbolick: If the result was a merge, would you prefer to merge this List of Fantastic Beasts characters to List of Fantastic Beasts cast members or the other way round? I kind of feel that we have more content here, and "characters" feels more natural to me than "cast members", also seeing that there is some spinoff into (and from) other media. So if there was to be a merge and it was up to me, I'd merge List of Fantastic Beasts cast members here. (And there is of course the other option as suggested by Adam Cuerden to merge List of Fantastic Beasts cast members to Fantastic Beasts. In case you would support that, how would that influence your merge opinion?) Daranios (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. "characters" does feel better. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the merge would result in "characters" being the final page. Malinaccier (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor characters[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Adding together many non-notable topics still gives you a non-notable topic. Some character articles like Sarah Jane Smith are notable but does not support having a list about every character in the series, which do not have significant coverage as required by WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep character lists' topic is the fictional element (The Sarah Jane Adventures), and are roundly considered to meet CSC #2. That is, no policy-based reason for deletion has been articulated. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^{[by whom?]} 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impossible Worlds, Impossible Things: Cultural Perspectives on Doctor Who, Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures has commentary on the characters in the series, starting from Sarah Jane, but also about the other characters as a group. Daranios (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. The problem here is less notability, but more size. The list can likely have the bulk of its content merged into the cast list already in the article given the bulk of characters here are at least decently recurring. This feels like it was dropped partway through, since the only characters beyond the significant recurring characters are minor characters from the first episode exclusively. If this does survive, it needs a major TNT/overhaul, but personally I don't see a reason for this to exist just based off of size reasons. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename, or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. I am not convinced the split into cast and minor characters is beneficial. So I could imagine keeping and renaming this into List of The Sarah Jane Adventures characters, and include brief descriptions and links to the cast characters, most of whom have their own articles. Seems helpful to me for navigation. With regard to notability, as mentioned above, I question if it makes any sense to try to divorce conventional fiction works from the characters. What would they be without the characters? Of course there still needs to be enough material in secondary sources to write anything. Still, if one wanted to ask for secondary sources specifically discussing the characters of The Sarah Jane Adventures, Dancing with the Doctor discusses them at various places, as does the book mentioned above and others. So even if one wanted to ask for notability of characters as opposed to the series as such, that would still be fullfilled. All that said, I don't have an overview how much the secondary sources in total have to say on characters other than the main cast (and how incomplete the current list is with regards to what Pokelego999 mentioned), so I cannot say if a stand-alone article or a merge would be best in the long run, based on WP:PAGEDECIDE rather than notability. Daranios (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures per WP:ATD. I only find WP:SIGCOV for characters who already have articles. The minor characters don't have much coverage, but are summed up nicely at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Merge? No support so far for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If asked to decide I would prefer keeping to merging. Hopefully there will be more input. Daranios (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best belong to Fandom, don't anybody think? (Nothing wrong with it though, I frequent visit that site) Serves to nobody but to the most ardent fans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHOCARES is not a valid argument. (and there is an awful lot wrong with fandom) --TheImaCow (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheImaCow: Fixed unclosed small HTML tag that caused display problems on pages transcluding this AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to point out that a list of this is useful for Fandom. Still, whats makes a list of minor characters worthy of a standalone list when most lists of characters are about characters with significant roles, hence my point. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the WP:Common selection criteria for lists is that all the listed items are non-notable. See, e.g., List of minor characters in the Alice series. Other lists, such as List of generation I Pokémon, mix notable and non-notable characters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions[edit]

no articles proposed for deletion at this time