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

Clanker

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

My edit noting the page's notability issues was reverted claiming the page is notable. I believe the term clearly fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS as all the coverage was from some days to a week ago suddenly seizing on the neologism. While the term was used in the Star Wars series a long time before that, it was only a fan thing equivalent to "frack" from Battlestar Galactica and hardly noted by itself. It will take much longer to determine whether or not the word is independently notable, though it could be mentioned in Droid (Star Wars) where it originally redirected. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Language, Video games, Popular culture, and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This word has gained a lot of coverage in the last 8 days. If it had this many sources over a more prolonged period I would think it notable. But all of the articles are very similar, covering some recent videos, memes and a comment by a senator. If the coverage continues then this should be an article but with only 8 days' of coverage I feel it fails on WP:SUSTAINED (Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability). I'm hesitating to !vote to delete or keep, as we don't yet know if it will have long-term notability. I think the best solution would be for it to spend a few months as a draft. If people are still writing about it in reliable sources in December then it's notable, if it's all-but forgotten about by then, it can be deleted. Mgp28 (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the article creator, the sources and article clearly establish that the term has already become used far outside the Star Wars fandom with Senator Ruben Gallego including it in political messaging. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but that policy includes WP:NEO, which says that "to support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term," which this article satisfies. The neologism policy also says that "when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles," and since the term has taken on a popular meaning outside the Star Wars context with linguistic and economic analysis of that new usage, a distinct article from Droid (Star Wars) is more appropriate. In April 2025, I opened WP:Articles for deletion/Italian brainrot, which agreed to keep an Internet meme article using far lower-quality sources than Gizmodo, NPR, and NBC News, all of which were published within a month of the article's creation. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, WP:NSUSTAINED's "See also" wikilinks to Wikipedia:Notability#Events and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event shows how this guideline is primarily meant to prevent articles on events or people with one temporary, yet newsworthy aspect. For an article on a word, even if usage of "clanker" declines, this set of in-depth analysis from high-quality sources will make the article a worthwhile resource on early responses to artificial intelligence. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Italian brainrot wasn't kept per se, you just withdrew it. There's a possibility the pendulum would have swung back towards delete if more people were allowed to weigh in, especially if all the sources were from a very close together range of dates. It's a common error to assume that early results in a discussion mean it's already over, but AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE.

SUSTAINED applies to most articles, not just people and events. It simply says topics for a reason. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - probably leaning towards sending it to draft. There's just very little to be said at this point, and about a quarter of the article is a semi-related tangent about "robot discrimination" that feels like filler as it is. Feels a bit WP:TOOSOON for this one. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Nullifier

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor fictional gadget from the Marvel universe. The article is just the usual plot summary/list of appearances, with zero analysis/reception, and my BEFORE fails to find anything. WP:ATD-R/M to the List of Marvel Universe features, perhaps - it is listed there, with no description (guess we can copy the lead over there...). PS. AfD 10 years ago ended at keep, several sources were cited, but only one linked and described as solid: [1] - but I see only a plot summary there. Other stuff mentioned then seems even less relevant/reliable, or hard to identify :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fantastic Four For Dummies has a paragraph with two pieces of commentary: It appears as a deus ex machina and it is a "very weighty idea, the kind that science fiction was created to explore." The Supervillain Book, in addition to plot summary, lists it among the superweapons which "have taken on an infamy of their own" and compares the exchange of the Nullfier for Galactus' departure with God's oath to Noah, a piece of literary criticism equally applicable to our article here and Galactus. The Gizmondo article at least has a bit of commentary in decreeing and explaining why it's a good thing that the Nullifier does not get a proper explanation. (1000 Facts about Supervillains Vol. 1 has complementary commentary on that, but alas, is self-published.) Daranios (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Galactus. There seems to be a bit of commentary on the subject but I'm not convinced it's independently notable of the wider topic of Galactus, which it seems to be heavily associated with in the sources provided. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dracthyr

AfDs for this article:

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

The result of the previous AfD was that it should be merged. Now, I am not opposed to unilaterally going against the result in the scenario that more sources were discovered, but I don't find that the current article is compellingly different from the previous version. The Reception section was by far the largest concern, with the most common issues taken with people who opposed its existence being a lack of sustained coverage and concerns that much of the coverage is routine. The one new source added for the Reception section was a source that actually provided very little reception (it also appears to be misquoted, unless I just misread—the Wikipedia article states the author had an opinion, but from what I saw, the author was stating the opinion of players). I believe that it is still a WP:NOPAGE situation, where its notability is inherently tied to the game of origin. I also conducted a WP:BEFORE search, and did not find anything additional that would have alleviated my concerns. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I'm having a hard time seeing what's changed since last year's strong merge consensus. All of the commentary seems to be within the context of the game itself, and as such, I believe Wikipedia's coverage should mirror that. And this feels like another one of those article splits that is employees extremely drawn out wording to create the illusion of needing a separate article. There's not all that much there, it could concisely be merged. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to World of Warcraft: Dragonflight per the prior AfD. For context, I did message the user who brought this back about this a few days back (Which I also completely forgot to reply to, I am so sorry about that). The user's reply should hopefully clarify, as they felt changes made to the Dracthyr in a later expansion (World of Warcraft: The War Within)w would help give it a degree of separation from Dragonflight.

While I get the idea, personally I do not feel as though it provides enough separation, as this is only discussed in terms of gameplay, and not in terms of reception. No sources in reception discuss the changes made in War Within, and there are no sources showing how this has impacted the Dracthyr's reception at all. Inherently they are still being discussed by critics only as a gameplay element of Dragonflight, the reason they were merged in the last AfD. In my view, not enough has changed for this recreation to meet separate notability at present. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: In addition to the Siliconera page already in the article, I found a Dot Esports article which is SIGCOV from a WP:RS. GameRant also has a number of pages on it [2] [3] and while I hesitate to use the site, it's technically considered a situationally reliable source as long as it's not outright used as the basis of an article's notability (and in this case, the race is already notable). Hopefully this will address your concerns about War Within coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator) - "The result of the previous AfD was that it should be merged" is no longer a relevant argument given that numerous additional sources have been added. "I don't find that the current article is compellingly different from the previous version." is simply not true, as it has had paragraphs of additional content added. Compared to before, it has this source, this source, this source, and this source, all arguably SIGCOV, and a couple of others. These new sources, and the fact that the race is now talked about in the context of War Within rather than Dragonflight, which would appear to negate the NOPAGE argument, are conveniently never mentioned by the nom. This is rather curious. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did mention the Laptop Mag source, I said that it was weak and seemed to be cited for a statement the author did not make. The other sources I didn't mention because the Siliconera source is routine sourcing and shows no notability for its role in the later expansion, and the other two are talking about an incident related to the Dracthyr mechanically. There's nothing curious about the nomination, I didn't mention them because I didn't consider them SIGCOV, especially not a routine article about Dracthyr getting new classes.

The notion that my claim is entirely untrue is a strange one to hold, because it's entirely subjective. You might find it compellingly different, but I do not. I wrote 'compellingly' for a reason. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is also a source I didn't use, but it shows that even just teasing more War Within classes was deemed worthy of a full article. It's borderline impossible to say that the race is only covered in terms of Dragonflight now, so this would appear to be raising the goalposts well beyond both GNG and NOPAGE. I simply don't think these sources can be discounted because they are inconvenient to the nom's argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you discounting the reasons I do not find the sources you posted compelling? At present, you're the only one of the four participants who feel this way. I do not find it inconvenient that there exists a list of Dracthyr classes, because no one considers that level of content SIGCOV. It's no different from routine coverage of Pokemon species. Also, existing in a separate game does not mean that an article clears NOPAGE. There isn't even evidence that Dracthyr is notable for being in the second expansion! Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, to address the reason you did not find the sources compelling - they are "routine". This would disqualify them from proving notability, yes. However, notability for the Dracthyr is not in question, so this AfD is not based on the idea that it fails GNG. That alone would appear to make it WP:WRONGFORUM, as it should by all respects solely be a merge discussion. If we approached it from a merge discussion standpoint, which is what this AfD seemingly is, there is nothing that disqualifies a routine source from demonstrating coverage outside of a specific area. As long as it is reliable, one can use things like game guides as long as notability does not hinge on it, which it does not. This concept that it has to be "double notable" is not in any Wikipedia policy, and appears to be a wholesale invention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you put double notable in quotes? My point is that bringing up that the character appears in something else doesn't matter for much when they're not notable for being in it. NOPAGE merely discusses whether the reader benefits from an article being split, and in this case, everything of any significance about Dracthyr is tied directly into the original expansion. What happened was that a later expansion got attention for adding classes, but nothing much was said about that. I also do not agree that GNG has been met, as nearly everything in the Reception section is about the mechanics of Dracthyr in a specific expansion. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...I really have no idea how it would not satisfy GNG, even the version from a couple of years ago. In my opinion it could stand on its own even at that time. GNG is: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (i.e. not Blizzard Entertainment-published). It did in fact get significant coverage in numerous reliable sources - Game Informer, Polygon, PC Gamer, PCGamesN, and Laptop Mag. You may be confusing "independent of the subject" with "independent of its source material"? It just means it has to be a secondary source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:54, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I hate to repeat myself, but my reasoning from the previous AFD is the same as my reasoning here. Probably one thing I could say is SUSTAINED is not really an issue now to some extent, but even then the other factors remain. I'm sorry Zx, this just doesn't sway me.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the sources, old and new together, establish notability of the topic. We do have a full, referenced article, we do have a full reception section. It includes critique of game mechanisms as well as why Dracthyr are liked or disliked by real-world people, all from a real-world perspective. I would not know why sources providing that should be discounted. The article also has a different orientation than World of Warcraft: Dragonflight, so I also think it is better to keep this page with regard to the WP:NOPAGE considerations of the guideline. Daranios (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its all good content, no doubt, I just don't understand why its separated into its own article. Its current state doesn't shy away that its talking about the games. Said reception section alone refers to how the race plays no less than 10 separate times. I mean, we open up said reception section with The new abilities manifested by the dracthyr were generally praised and seen as modernizing the game. The article biggest focus is how it plays in the games. So cover it at the game article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about gameplay that is totally unique to this race and not shared by the other races one might play Dragonflight with. Every player does not just start as a Dracthyr when playing the expansion, they have to make a separate character that is that race in order to use such gameplay features. Their specificity means this page is separately relevant. If a Dracthyr was just the default player character for everyone then there could be a point in saying it intersects too much. Critics are saying that if you choose to make a new character that is this race, the game feels more modern. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure why you think Dracthyr being one of multiple classes disconnects it from the game, or why it prevents it from being adequately covered in Dragon flight. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why that's a reason for a separate article though. Games have very different gameplay mechanics for different characters all the time. This feels like justifying a Big the Cat character page just because he plays drastically different than Sonic the Hedgehog's fast gameplay in Sonic Adventure. JRPGs commonly have multiple gameplay styles. Do we need multiple articles to articulate Persona 3's contrasting dungeon crawler and social simulation segments? Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atropia (fictional country)

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

Subject lacks notability / WP:SIGCOV. Over 80% of the references rely on a single primary source from the US Army. A film based on the fictional country is notable, but this "country" itself is one of many used in military training. More coverage is needed beyond the context of the film to determine notability. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is currently a bit of a muddle that needs work to separate the "real" Atropia (the training center) and the fictional Atropia, but overall it meets WP:GNG: for example, here's a full-length article in the Wall Street Journal (archive).

All that said, I would not necessarily object to refocusing the article from Atropia alone to all fictional countries used by the US military, although I'm pretty sure Atropia is the most notable of the bunch. Asamboi (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Military, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable based on previously demonstrated sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Asamboi. The context is really weird, but it's notable. Svartner (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LuLu the Piggy

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

Fails WP:THREE, see the DYK nom. Laun chba ller 00:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and China. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wonder if User:Cunard could dig anything up? There are sources and mentions, but they seem to be heavily marketing/press release level, so - meh from me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As mentioned in the DYK nom, the article by 玩世代 seems to be the most in-depth third-party source available, but I can't tell how independent it is.[4] The character got a bit of coverage in the Thai press following sightings in Instagram stories of Lisa's. (It's mostly repeated info, but the articles being prompted by Lisa's Instagram indicate a level of public interest.)[5][6] There are more Thai news articles about the Siam Discovery pop-up store, but it's mostly PR material. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Destrii

AfDs for this article:

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

Like Izzy Sinclair, this character really only has one strong hit: [7]. Barring the brief mentions here, Destrii is only briefly mentioned in sources, and one source is not enough to build an article on. All other sources in the article are PRIMARY ones. I'd suggest a redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters as an AtD, as she is already mentioned and discussed there. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Campbell (Final Destination)

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

The article on Erik Campbell, a character from the recently-released horror film Final Destination Bloodlines, failed its featured article candidacy, and two separate users brought up the issue of notability. Specifically, that most of the sources used for the character consist of trivial mentions, rather than significant coverage. The sources that can be described as significant coverage were viewed as having more to due with the character's death scene, rather than the character himself; or the actor's performance. Before attempting to do any further work on the article itself, it seemed like bringing the discussion of notability here was the only way forward; figuring out if it was even worth pursuing those improvements. Having written the article from scratch and gone through every single source that can be viewed as high-quality and reliable enough for Wikipedia, I can say with certainty that there is nothing else I could find to add. Being too close to the article, I believe it is appropriate that the question of its notability be discussed by non-biased users. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – The subject is clearly notable and discussed in multiple sources in depth. Whilst they may be discussing his death scene, they also talk about the character in depth, and the death still concerns him. This is one of Wikipedia's Good Articles and has no issues and should definitely be kept. If not, I would recommend preserving by Redirecting to the film. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is false to claim that this article lacks WP:SIGCOV. That specifically says, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The example of a trivial mention is, "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that 'In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice' is plainly a trivial mention of that band." Erik is more than trivially mentioned. What needs to be considered here is whether or not the broader notable topic, the film, can house everything about the character. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, so there is always potential to have this kind of article. To frame it another way, if we have a film article with a very long "Production" section, it can be split off into its own sub-article. Character articles can be such sub-articles if there is abundant information. So it's worth assessing the information here. Is it indiscriminate as a whole or in part, and if the latter, can it be condensed? Why this character and not other characters? Would a Characters of Final Destination article be possible as an in-between scope? Erik (talk | contrib) 19:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Final Destination Bloodlines. I don't agree that the coverage in this article constitues SIGCOV. In any instance where the subject is not the main topic, but is a primary referent, there's a strong argument. In these articles, Erik is discussed – at best – in passing or as it relates to the actor, or as one of the film's most prominent deaths. Erik the character is not repeatedly framed as a character in their own right in any of the sources. Honestly, it's a red flag that Erik is not mentioned once in any of the source's titles. Googling for more info, nothing turns up as explicitly about Erik. I genuinely admire the author for putting together an overview of the character from essentially every bit of available commentary, but ultimately this has been done in spite of the notability policy, which the subject does not meet. – ImaginesTigers 19:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is a good article and clearly has enough valuable information for it to be a separate article, what Tigres brings up about Erik not being the primary topic in the cited articles can be worrying, but Imho I think it's fairly established that a subject does not need to be the sole or even the main topic in the sources for the coverage to be considered "significant" if the information found among the sources is extensive.★Trekker (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV explicitely says that the topic of an article "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" for it to count as significant coverage. Daranios (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have a full article here which has been rated a good article not long ago. Which in turn means that the sources, even if their individual coverage may be short but not trivial in cases, are sufficient to fulfill the reason why we have a notability guideline in the first place and therefore collectively provide significant coverage. The death of the character is a sub-topic of both the character and the film. Based on WP:NOTPAPER I don't see a problem with covering that here. On the other hand there is basically no commentary on the character in Final Destination Bloodlines article, and merging over what we have there would not fit well. So I see only drawbacks in not keeping this article.

Aside from that, would it be possible to link the discussions regarding featured article status mentioned by PanagiotisZois? Because at least me I could not easily find them. Daranios (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Erik_Campbell_(Final_Destination)/archive1 is where these discussions occurred. Hopefully this helps. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Final Destination Bloodlines. Bar the one source about his death scene at the end, all of the coverage is inherently one or two mentions in a review of the film. It's textbook WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS plucked from sources, and as a whole they do not meet WP:SIGCOV, since Campbell is not a major focus of these reviews, only being given glancing commentary. This can easily be trimmed to a sentence or two in the main article stating something like "Campbell, and Harmon's performance as him, received a highly positive reception from critics, and his death scene was also highlighted." Per WP:NOPAGE, there's a lot of overlap in terms of sources, and there's not enough coverage specifically focused on Campbell to justify a split. As I mentioned at the Featured Article review, I feel this is a very well-done article, and the creator did a fantastic job on it, but I am not convinced it meets notability guidelines at present.

I will also note that an article being GA status does not mean it is immune to notability standards. GAs are judged on the quality of the article, and a high quality non-notable article can pass just as well as a high quality notable article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a can't see the forest for the trees situation. Yes, this is a borderline case of enough significant coverage to meet GNG, and we could delete the article or delete most of it by merging. And yet the article has been made, it is well sourced and of good quality, written by someone passionate about the subject. I'm glad this exists, and I don't think it would benefit readers to delete it. The best thing to do here is nothing, based on NOPAPER and IAR. Rhino131 (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It's largely sourced to reviews of the movie itself rather than sources that are written specifically about the character or dedicate a large portion to discussing him. The use of many trivial mentions without significant coverage to back up an article's notability is a common problem in fictional articles. In this case GNG is failed, which is evidenced by the very brief sentences in reception; they are all extremely short trivial quotes pulled from reviews not actually about him. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of skulls used to depict Yorick

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

WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Yorick#Portrayals, so no need for a separate, largely duplicative, article. Suggest mergeing there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Theatre. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. I think this subject passes WP:GNG and WP:LISTN well enough to justify having a list article. Additionally, it is not a content fork from the Yorick page at all; that page was in quite poor shape before I worked on it just earlier today, so it now has some information from the list, but did not before. The list goes into detail on each case that would be undue for inclusion on the Yorick page. Seeing the arguments presented by others, I'm changing my vote to merge. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reading through the article I feel like this is a proper expansion of unique examples that deserve more context, but don't fit within the prose of the main article. Well-sourced and with proper illustrations. Nathannah • 📮 23:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: with Yorick. The only source used to meet WP:LISTN is a blog. For a stand-alone list, there has to be source proving that the subject is discussed as a group. Rublamb (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rublamb: The subject is discussed as a group by The Guardian, MentalFloss, and HyperAllergic. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: Since the lede is where you explain the reason for the list and its notability, the best and most comprehensive sources should be used there. Blogs are generally not accepted as sources; although it does appear to be written by a scholar. Fixing this will be a huge improvement. Rublamb (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Yorick#Portrayals puts in prose information about André Tchaikowsky, Fontaine, John Reed, George Frederick Cooke, Juan Potomachi, Del Close, David Tennant, and Jonathan Hartman. I commend ArtemisiaGentileschiFan on his work on this topic, but this list is duplicative, and there is no reason to have a separate page just so it can be in table form with actors' images. Any additional details can still be merged there with no issue and there's no need for a split. Reywas92^Talk 01:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Yorick#Portrayals per Reywas92 - The information has been written into prose form on the main article, showing that it can fit very well in that format, and the article is short enough that there is no size concern to warrant a split. Having the same information on two pages, just one being in prose form and the other in list form, just becomes a redundant fork. Any of the good sources and/or info present in the list that is not in the main article should definitely be merged over, though. Rorshacma (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nathannah. This is interesting, encyclopedic, sourced information that does not fit in the Yorick article (for example, because of WP:BALASP) or the Hamlet article, or any one other article, and should be kept as a stand-alone list. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Yorick#Portrayals; this is inherently an extension of the section in Yorick's article, and Yorick's article is short enough to where this slots in nicely as a prose addition. Per Wikipedia:NOPAGE, there is significant content overlap between these two topics, and it is best depicted here alongside other important information about Yorick. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Yorick#Portrayals as the middle ground. There is info here that has enough quality to WP:PRESERVE but we don't need to divide the content to two locations. Archrogue (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Would be very WP:UNDUE to list on the main article, and passes WP:NLIST. Yorick as a character has plenty of analysis and discussion beyond who portrayed him. The reason it is mostly about the portrayals is because the person who wrote the article at stake bothered to improve that section. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The Yorick article previously had some character analysis, but it was recently removed as unsourced. I agree that the other sections of the article should be expanded, but that's still no reason to split this off. — Reywas92^Talk 01:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While an odd subject, odd does not necessarily mean unencyclopedic, and, in fact, multiple people specifically donated their skulls for this purpose, making it a matter of public and artistic interest. While it could theoretically be merged, WP:NOTPAPER dictates that a merge should only be performed when absolutely necessary such as extreme redundancy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, NOTPAPER does not dictate anything and says nothing about merges or redundancy, you're making things up out of thin air. It does note that long articles can be split, but this isn't long. Literally no one here has suggested this is unencyclopedic or that it's not of interest, I agree that this is very interesting! But being interesting doesn't mean it needs a standalone page, at any level of redundancy; I merge pages with basically no redundancy all the time. — Reywas92^Talk 16:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine (G.I. Joe)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional character from the G.I. Joe universe with no indication of real-world notability. Tagged as of questionable notability for over a year. He gets some hits on Google Scholar, but, as far as I can see, nothing more than a passing mention; the first hit, for example, is from Analyzing the Marvel Universe, and the full extent of the mention is "Other African Americans were the winter warfare expert (Iceberg) and mountain war expert (Alpine), either role not ordinarily associated with African Americans in war comics." Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Toys. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since this is almost entirely a plot summary and merchandise, with no info on reception or cultral significance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Seems to fail WP:GNG, I don't see the reliable sources demonstrating standalone notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zaltair

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

Seems like a non-notable trivia related to biography of a famous person. Poorly sourced, and my BEFORE shows nothing that suggests WP:SIGCOV can be met (all sources I see are simply either interviews with the creator or his biographies, there is no independent significance to this outside being a funny anecdote from his life). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Computing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Tyler

AfDs for this article:

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

A side character in Doctor Who. The only real hits I can find on this guy that are semi-strong are reviews for Father's Day (Doctor Who); most hits for subsequent appearances are either brief, trivial mentions, or purely plot summary. The only semi-strong hit I found was this: [8], which not only is solely about his appearance in Father's Day, but is also just the character being used as an example in the setup to the book's larger point. The character himself is not the subject of discussion here, and even if you did consider this WP:SIGCOV, this is the only strong hit I could find that does not fall into one of the other pratfalls above. Given the bulk of the coverage relates to Pete's role in Father's Day, per WP:NOPAGE, and the fact there's not much SIGCOV for his subsequent appearances, I'd suggest an AtD redirect to Father's Day, as that article is likely going to be the most helpful for understanding who the character is, and subsequent appearances of the character are inherently variations of the one who appeared in that episode. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:08, 3 August 2025 (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 United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What pure plot summary RS'es did you find? Remember, plot summaries are transformative and valid secondary sources per WP:PSTS. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, Who Is the Doctor: The Unofficial Guide to Doctor Who: The New Series has one longish sentence of commentary on the character outside of his appearance in "Father's Day", which might be added that episode but would not be a great fit. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's actually already in the article. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In my view we do have a non-stubby article with a reasonable amount development and reception, so I see the minium for notability fulfilled and based on the WP:NOTPAPER I don't see a problem with some duplication with regard to Father's Day (Doctor Who). On the other hand a separate article on the character accommodates his less prominent appearances outside that episode. Still, there is overlap and it's not a very long reception, so I am not strongly opposed to a merge to Father's Day (Doctor Who) either. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleon (character)

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm electing to re-nominate this for deletion after it was nominated a few years back. Though I participated in the first discussion, I wasn't particularly adept in these discussions, but even now I still feel this doesn't meet the notability guidelines. The bulk of the votes for keeping were WP:ITSIMPORTANT votes, and of the sources identified, the bulk of them were either plot summaries, trivial mentions, or low quality WP:VALNET sources. Searches still yield absolutely nothing in the way of WP:SIGCOV for this character. This character just doesn't have independent notability from other Spider-Man villains, regardless of how many assertions are made that the character is important. Any of the brief, one sentence pieces of scattered commentary can easily be slotted into the Chameleon's list entry at List of Marvel Comics characters: C#Chameleon. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and United States of America. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the ranked coverage in the reception section, describing him as an iconic villain, not just the first, and the detailed list of numerous appearances across comic books, film, television and video games. This is not just a plot summary. Including just the character's appearances would overwhelm the list of Marvel Comics characters article. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: C#Chameleon. Once again I am wondering why we are leading a deletion discussion here rather than going through a merge discussion as policy would suggest when a merge is already recognized as a reasonable WP:Alternative to deletion. We do have commentary by Valnet articles as situational sources, which are suggested to not be considered with regard to stand-alone-notability, but can be useful to a limited degree for commentary within an article. And we have limited commentary in the secondary sources suggested by RL0919 and BOZ as well as the IGN article. These + publication history + other media + a balance plot summary are enough to write an article which both fullfils WP:WHYN and WP:NOTPLOT. Reception still would not be very long, though, so it may also fit into an extended section in the List of Marvel Comics characters article. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Said IGN article provides a single paragraph of commentary about the character. Even if IGN is generally more high quality than Valnet, the article doesn’t say enough to carry the burden of making this character notable. Industrial Insect (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My argument does not rely on the IGN article alone. Have you also checked out the three books raised in the last deletion discussion? They are all mostly plot summary, but also have brief commentary and each has more lengthy treatement than the IGN article. Daranios (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daranios' argument as the subject means GNG and fulfils WP:NOTPLOT DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG based on Daranios. Excessive plot information can always be trimmed of course, but I don't see any need to delete or merge this article. Rhino131 (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This character meets GNG and has been covered by several sources as an iconic villain in the franchise. Excessive plot detail can be removed through editing. Doesn't appear to merit deletion. MidnightMayhem 19:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw for now. Been thinking over the comments and feel this is better handled as a merge discussion as opposed to an AfD. While I do not believe this article is notable, I believe there's likely a better venue for discussing this in this case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reaffirming my previous Keep based on the sources found during the previous AfD. Also, remove the notability tag from the top of the article, since the nominator appears to be out of step in thinking this isn't notable. --RL0919 (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would like to remind the deleting admin that AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE and comic book fans ganging up to stop an AfD simply by voting keep without further explanation is not a viable deletion argument. Doesn't seem like an independently notable character with all the book mentions in the last AfD being trivial coverage. As for a merge, while possible, the list of Marvel Comics characters is a clearly overbroad WP:LISTN failure and shouldn't be encouraged. Also following this, withdrawal would be a withdrawal supervote, therefore it should not be allowed to happen. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, I gave explanations in the previous AfD, which I referenced here. The "book mentions" that I called out then are all multiple paragraphs and include commentary. Those are not trivial mentions. They are also physical print books from the ancient world (1987, 2004, and 2006), not listicle crap from content farms or garbage.ai, and also not published by Marvel. (You are correct that withdrawal by the nominator is typically not allowed if other editors have expressed support for deletion.) --RL0919 (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity, the withdrawal happened at a point where there were only keep opinions. So at that time that was completely in line with policy. Only now that the discussion has not been closed and we have a deletion opinion is it relevant for the closer not to make this a supervote. I also don't think that the participants being "comic book fans ganging up to stop an AfD" is a description that can be based in facts (although I'd not consider it severe to be called part of a comic fans gang :-). Daranios (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Brothers in Silk

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

A minor set of characters from DC Comics. A search yields quite literally nothing bar trivial mentions in announcements and VALNET listicles, and the current article cites no sources whatsoever. Clearly non-notable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced article on an incredibly minor, non-notable comic team. As stated in the nom, searches are turning up pretty much no coverage in reliable sources, making this group too non-notable to even include in a character list. Rorshacma (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Birds of Prey (team) as a ATD. Please ping me if GNG is found so I can rethink my vote if needed. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DaniloDaysOfOurLives this is completely unmentioned at the target, and the current article has no list of antagonists, so there's no real place to merge the content either. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above (redirection is preferable to hard deletion). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect per above. There is a basic WP:GNG failure but redirect is good for the search term. Archrogue (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm going to have to agree with Pokelego999 above that Redirecting really doesn't work in this case. The group is not mentioned in the target article at all so having it redirect there just would not make sense for anyone searching for the term. And given that this article has zero sources, and the general complete lack of notability of the group, any kind of a merge would not be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Black Widow supporting characters

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

Has heavy overlap with Black Widow (Natasha Romanova); the bulk of the characters on this list are covered in-depth at Natasha's article already, and those that aren't seem to have little relevance to Natasha's character, as many of them are only here due to being affiliated once or twice with the character instead of being important, recurring characters in the Black Widow mythos. All major coverage of Black Widow's supporting characters is already present at the Black Widow article. There is no real reason for a split here that isn't just WP:CRUFT, and there's nothing to merge since every source in this article is a PRIMARY citation to comic strips. A viable AtD is to the supporting characters section at the Natasha Romanova article, where this content is discussed in greater depth than it is at this article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and United States of America. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator appears to have made a typo and is referring to Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) (Black Widow (Natasha Romanov) is.a redlink). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcquidditch thank you! Yes, that is the article I was referring to. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You should get that link fixed while this discussion is still opened. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just done. Thank you! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Black Widow (Natasha Romanova)#Supporting characters: I believe this list is valuable for browsing among notable characters which have appeared in connection with the notable character of Black Widow, but there being only primary sources, notability is very much in question. Not all currently listed blue-linked characters appear at that target, so merging missing content (or even most of the list, due to navigation being not so convenient for those already appearing at the target in prose) seems the best solution and WP:Alternative to deletion to me. Daranios (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Black Widow (Natasha Romanova)#Supporting characters as WP:ATD. Archrogue (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Black Widow (Natasha Romanova)#Supporting characters per WP:ATD & reasonings above. Notability is questionable, over-reliance on primary sources; merge seems appropriate. jolielover♥talk 18:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Black Widow (Natasha Romanova)#Supporting characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE while also redirecting any characters that go to that page back to their respectful List of Marvel Comics characters pages in the same spirit. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. She is not a big enough name to warrant a subarticle like that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robby Stewart

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

Filing on behalf of an IP:

There's really nothing meaningful to say about him other than that he's inspired by Billy Ray Cyrus; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. 2605:B40:1302:6C00:E969:5683:DF32:BAC1 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Popular culture. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hannah Montana characters#Robby Stewart - The one bit of reliably sourced info here, regarding the casting of the character, is already at the main character list verbatim. Searches bring up plenty of mentions of the character, either in summaries/discussions of the show/episodes or in pieces about Billy Ray Cyrus' career, but I am not finding any significant coverage or analysis on the character himself to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are quite a lot of sources mentioning this character (who appears to be commonly referred to as Robby Ray); see [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], + some books I'm unable to link rn, but can be found on Google Scholar. Now I can't do a thorough WP:BEFORE right now so I don't know how often each of these sources mention Robby, whether he has substantial coverage in those works, and if all of it is enough to meet WP:GNG, but I ask editors to consider these sources. @Rorshacma, Pppery, and 2605:B40:1302:6C00:E969:5683:DF32:BAC1: jolielover♥talk 18:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be better to analyse the references presented by Jolielover.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Izzy Sinclair

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

A comic book companion in the Doctor Who comic strips. A search for sources yields only two hits: [15] this, which only yields small bits of coverage, and this [16] which largely is plot summary with minor comments. Any other source mentioning her is a chiefly trivial mention in plot summary. This character just doesn't really have much WP:SIGCOV to back up a whole article. I'd suggest a redirect to List of Doctor Who spin-off companions as a viable AtD, since she is mentioned in that article already and her current article is entirely plot summary. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Doctor Who spin-off companions as the nominator's sugestion for an WP:ATD. Archrogue (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Merger? Also, you can't choose List of Doctor Who spin-off companions as a target article as it is a Redirect, not an article. Please select an existing article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is not kept, I would recommend a merge and redirect to List of companions in Doctor Who spinoffs. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of companions in Doctor Who spinoffs#Izzy Sinclair as per alternative to deletion and after conducting a BEFORE search, I did not found sufficient references to meet general notability guidelines or to demonstrate significant coverage. Fade258 (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Life Model Decoy

AfDs for this article:

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

Yet again, no reception/analysis - this is just plot summary and list of apperances. The old AfD from 2013 or so claimed "sources exist", but did not mention which ones contain SIGCOV that goes beyong plot summary, and my BEFORE failed to locate anything (I had trouble accessing some sources cited, but for example the mention in What is American? book seems to be to be pure plot summary and SIGCOV-failing; in either case, the article, as I said, has no analysis/reception of any sort). Per WP:ATD-R, this can be redirected to Features of the Marvel Universe. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Technology. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reliable sources don't provide enough information to pass WP:NOT and WP:GNG. Other articles already cover how this factors into the story with proper real-world context, and I would consent to an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to S.H.I.E.L.D. BOZ (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have the results of the Google Scholar search been considered? Already the first hit, Re-Entering the Dollhouse: Essays on the Joss Whedon Series, has a longish treatment of the life model decoy character A.I.D.A. Is this character treated elsewhere on Wikipedia or is it not rather within the scope of this one? Can anyone access "Iron Man's Heart? Daranios (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like the Agents of Shield version of the character that is being discussed in that source is included on the character list for the show - List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters#Aida "Ophelia" / Madame_Hydra. The comic version the character was based on is also included on one of the Marvel character lists - List of Marvel Comics characters: A#AIDA. Rorshacma (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mutants, Androids, and Aliens has commentary on Life Model Decoys, using individual characters as examples, and drawing conclusions about robots and androids more generally, but also pronouncing that disctincions matter and that the Life Model Decoy has a very specific niche as a sentient android (at least in this incarnation). So "no recpetion/analysis" falls short. (Drat, I did not actually want to know all those revelations on shows I may still watch.) What is American? has at least brief commentary on the life model decoy from a specific story as a "product of transformative experiments undertaken by a secret American government", etc. Unnützes Wissen für Marvel-Nerds suggests that Life Model Decoys function can be to retro-actively distance a character from behaviour in storylines. Daranios (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joss Whedon Versus the Corporation, p. 74, 125, also discusses how the LMD story element represents technological dangers; while drawing general conclusion (and comparisons with other media), this is again based on the character AIDA. In contrast, "Iron Man : entre confusion identitaire et addiction à la technologie" has similar conclusions but is based on an unrelated LMD. Daranios (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I count at least six secondary sources in the article that make it notable. The article contains much information specific to its topic that would be too unwieldly if it were merged into the SHIELD article. Nightscream (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream Which of these sources go beyond plot summary and meet WP:SIGCOV? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not done a deep dive into the sources. Nightscream (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which means your argument can be summarized as WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on the content of sources notwithstanding, WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES would mean that no such sources have been named. That is not the case here, as the secondary sources in question are currently listed in the references of the article. So that essay does not apply to the situation here. Daranios (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to S.H.I.E.L.D.. Daranios's sources have some fantastic coverage, but they feel more fitting for an AIDA article than a Life Model Decoy one, as they're largely all in relation to how it affects that particular character instead of being about the concept as a whole. I wouldn't be opposed to an AIDA article at some point based on the extent of this coverage, but for the terms of this AfD and the coverage of specifically Life Model Decoys, I'd say it's likely not enough for notability. SHIELD seems to be the most valid AtD at present, so I'd recommend a redirect there to preserve the info in case of a future AIDA article or something similar. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: What is American? is about a very different LMD than AIDA. Mutants, Androids, and Aliens is talking more about what the concept LMD brings with it in general and LMD Melinda May than AIDA, although I think all in the same medium. Daranios (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nightscream's assertion about the sources making it notable. BOZ (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assertion...? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some secondary sources appear in the article, some with plot summary, others with limited commentary. E.g. the Hollywood Reporter article goes through LMDs history and gives their characterization and narrative function. I have listed a number of more in-depth sources above. There is most analysis in relation with one specific character, AIDA, but the sources draw conclusions on LMDs more general. And there is also commentary on other LMDs. So yes, some of that could be fit into AIDA, but I think it is more benefical to have everything in one place, giving this context from various LMD characters. WP:NOTPAPER means that some duplication between here and AIDA would not be a problem. All that said, I think a split and merge to AIDA and S.H.I.E.L.D. (although that yet lacks a technology section), or maybe to Features of the Marvel Universe#Objects (advantage: some LMDs are only very indirectly related to S.H.I.E.L.D.) is possible. I just think there being enough material for a full article and the alternative meaning splitting the material would be an inferior solution. Daranios (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims that were made by @Nightscream:, @BOZ:, and @Daranios:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why do fan articles like this get a pass if they're for Marvel? As the nominator says, there's no secondary coverage here. It's all just in-universe stuff. Fine for a fan wiki, but that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

Coverage should be a redirect to a section in whichever is the best of our infinite universe of Marvel articles, no more. 2A00:23C5:E9AC:DA01:6C4C:4E3:8ECB:EFDB (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TNT, regardless of whether sources exist, it needs a full rewrite anyway as the page is currently unsalvageable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect probably to S.H.I.E.L.D.. Coverage looks to be either trivial or unreliable or both, but this is a reasonable search term that is clearly mentioned in good secondary sources even if not really covered in depth. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources identified by Daranios. These provide enough WP:SIGCOV for the article to pass WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect This AFD looks like it might be trending to no consensus. With my merge/redirect, I see the nominator's delete/redirect, three more deletes, two more redirects, one merge turned keep, and four keeps. But I see some more WP:ATD support if you read in the comments. It could be maybe 7/12 combining the soft redirect/merge support, which would be more than the keeps or deletes by themselves. When you clean up the primary sourced "known examples" this would be a stub with a very easy and clean merge. Archrogue (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to S.H.I.E.L.D., where the concept is explained in the "Fictional organizational history" section. If a specific character has coverage and analysis, that might demonstrate that specific character is notable, but that does not extend to the entire, uh, "species" (for lack of better term) they belong to. The trivia list of examples that most of the article is made up of is clearly not appropriate for merging, and the actual explanation of LMDs is already covered in the main SHIELD article. Rorshacma (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not just a SHIELD technology, but rather influences the entire Marvel comics universe and is mirrored in other media. GNG is met, NOPAGE arguments are not convincing, and the main SHIELD article is already very busy, as it seems to have is tentacles into everything Marvel... Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time