Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

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:
  1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Fictional elements|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Fictional elements. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Purge page cache watch

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

Related deletion sorting


Fictional elements

List of Doom Patrol enemies

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

This is a mostly unsourced spin off from the Doom Patrol article. Wikipedia implores us to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criteria nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. There is nothing here to preserve that isn't covered at the main article (not to mention other villain group articles like Brotherhood of Evil or Brotherhood of Dada). The target article is also missing sources but at least provides a valid redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dick Tracy villains

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

This is a mostly unsourced spin off from List of Dick Tracy characters. Wikipedia implores us to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criteria nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Wikipedia also implores us not to create endless splits of similar articles without sources when those topics can be covered together in a single article. The target article is also missing sources but at least provides a valid redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of James Bond villains

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

This is a mostly unsourced spin off from List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series, which is also questionably sourced and possibly WP:OR. This article is almost completely unsourced and there is nothing to preserve that hasn't already been covered at similar articles, including List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series and the mentions in List of James Bond films. Wikipedia implores us to not endlessly make new splits of the similar topics based on WP:SYNTH and arbitrary scope. Jontesta (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification comment. Suggest either delete one, or merge one into the other. We don't need two lists doing the same thing. This is not about whether or not Bond characters have been listed/covered. Both lists do that, to one degree or another. This is about list duplication, and which one is the most accurate and most within Wikipedia standards to do so. — Maile (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kavanagh, C., Cavanna, A. (2020). James Bond villains and psychopathy: A literary analysis. Journal of Psychopathology, 26(4), 273-283 [10.36148/2284-0249-351]. link
Grandy, C. (2014). The shape of villainy: Profiteering and money-men. In Heroes and happy endings: Class, gender, and nation in popular film and fiction in interwar Britain (pp. 83-132). Manchester: Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526111210.00010 (note: not able to access full view of this)
DiLeo, M. (2002). The Spy who Thrilled Us: A Guide to the Best of the Cinematic James Bond. Hal Leonard Corporation. Though just snippet view, this book includes multiple pages on how Bond villains attempt to kill Bond and fail.
Hall, J. (2017, May 24). All 104 James Bond Villains, Ranked. Esquire. link
Huver, S. (2023, September 6). The top 25 James Bond villains, ranked. AV Club. link
Ultimately "Bond villain" is not an unencyclopedic cross-categorization, but a topic that's talked about and written about in the popular and scholarly press. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others citing WP:NLIST. In addition to the above, I found these:
Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ibis the Invincible enemies

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

This is complete unsourced. The main article Ibis the Invincible is notable but Wikipedia implores us to not immediately split new articles if it would fail the general notability criteria and specific notability criteria for their topic. There is nothing to preserve, and for those who disagree, any fixes can occur at the main Ibis the Invincible article. Jontesta (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay of Pokémon

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

This article falls afoul of multiple different rationales and guidelines, which I'll go over now.

-The article's scope is unclear. It's titled "Gameplay of Pokémon", but is primarily discussing Pokémon battling. Additionally, it is only covering the gameplay of the main series of Pokémon video games, and not the gameplay of any game that diverges from that basic gameplay style. I've already merged some of this content to Pokémon (video game series), and while it needs work, this content really only pertains to that article and not to the franchise as a whole, making a spin-out unnecessary.

- This article fails WP:VGSCOPE. It goes into excessive detail about various game mechanics, and is a gross violation of guideline 7 in VGSCOPE, which states that excessive listing of gameplay concepts is not a valid spin-out rationale.

-A source search for notability only yields WP:ROUTINE coverage on gameplay changes when new games come out, as well as WP:VALNET articles that do not provide notability per WP:VG/RS. A search through Books yields only WP:Trivial mentions or is discussing Pokémon Go's gameplay, which is unrelated to the scope of this article. Scholar yields more of the aforementioned finds, but also has a few sources discussing it in correlation with competitive Pokémon. Notability is not WP:INHERITED from the competitive Pokémon topic, which is notable and is an article I'm working on a rewrite for right now, so these sources are not helpful for determining the gameplay's individual notability.

-In short, nothing inherently dictates that Pokémon's gameplay is separately notable from the Pokémon franchise as a whole, and gameplay can easily be summarized at each game's individual article's "Gameplay" sections, as each game has such a varying style of being played that it is impossible to make one article that covers everything without falling afoul of VGSCOPE. I've mentioned a viable AtD target above (Pokémon (video games series)) that could be helpful for preserving page history on the off-chance this article turns out to be notable in the future, but as it stands, this article isn't individually notable and is better off redirected, merged, or what have you. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't understand nom's rationale that "The article's scope is unclear". The article describes the gameplay of the games described in Pokémon (video game series) as "The main series of role-playing video games (RPGs), referred as the 'core series' by their developers". Separately, I'm not against a merge of the current content of the article, which is largely duplicative of the series and individual game articles. However, from trying to navigate between the various Pokémon game articles, it's currently already frustrating to actually understand the gameplay of any individual game, due to the articles being structured with descriptions of "like previous entries" or "the same as X", plus a "new features" section. I think merging this makes that problem worse, necessitating the reader to read back through the line of individual game articles. ~ A412 talk! 22:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they're saying it veers off-topic a lot, which I agree with. For starters, why would you put a "release timeline" in a gameplay article? There's lots of that sort of stuff, the more you look and think about it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also add that if there's any issues that are caused by this article's removal, I am willing to and will handle the fixing of those issues editorially. I've been working on improving the Pokémon topic area for a while now, so I know what areas and articles this will affect and what will need to be changed. If you have any more specific advice for this problem, let me know and I'll try to implement these into the articles. At worst, also, we can link a hatnote to the relevant subsection (In this case, Pokémon (video game series)#Gameplay) in place of the previous hatnote to the Gameplay of Pokémon article, as this subsection currently covers the bulk of the important information as is. If you have any more suggestions on if anything else should be merged to that section, then feel free to say it here, and if closed as redirect/merge, we can add it there. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or partial merge, per nom. Gameplay of X" or "Story of X" is essentially the same as "X". Beyond some point, it begins to violate WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:UNDUE. Once you clean up the violating material, you'd find it redundant with the game article itself, with very little new ground to cover. The main Pokémon (video game series) article is a good place to summarize the essential features across these many games, and is already surplus coverage that isn't covered at the individual game articles. (In addition to the main Pokémon article about the whole multi-media intellectual property.) If Pokelego999's opinion is that this is excessive, then other editors should take that seriously. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Minecraft characters

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

This is a fork of content on the main Minecraft article that doesn't warrant its own article. The bulk of this article is a Fandom-style listing of all of the mobs in Minecraft - the kind of thing that Wikipedia avoids being (unless it has good reason). It's a list of game mechanics that isn't (and can't be) written in an encyclopedic way. This list isn't discussed together in secondary, reliable sources. There are few notable topics here - namely Steve, Creeper, and Herobrine, which already have their own articles. But the rest just lists parts of the game.

Anyway, I argue this article does not warrant a Wikipedia article because it fails the notability of lists. Its content is adequately covered in the main Minecraft article. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As the nominator says, these mobs are not really distinct "characters" and are more or less gameplay elements with little notability attached to their names. This list isn't really warranted, and is better off removed for the time being. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death's Head

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

Fails WP:GNG article is almost all list of apperences + plot summary. Very limited devolpement info and no reception best I could found was this [1] everything else was related to him getting a toy Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm expecting you to actually engage, but what exactly is wrong with Starburst and Amazing Heroes as sources? Beyond them not showing up when you mash words into Google? Not doing any digging until someone lays out what exactly is wrong with the sourcing present, because at the moment it looks like yet another I Don't Like It nomination from this editor. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to whatever list of fictional characters from his most relevant franchise is. Pure plot summary and least of appearances - fails WP:GNG. WP:NOTPLOT, WP:NOTCATALOGUE, WP:FANCRUFT... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: D in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is a lot of publication history that goes beyond just plot summaries. The article is sourced to Wizard, Bleeding Cool, Amazing Heroes, and Starburst. If either the nature of the publications or the nature of the coverage is not adequate to establish notability, that should be demonstrated here before merging into the list. Rjjiii (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That, to be honest, is the nub of my dissatisfaction with this nomination. Those four sources have been considered reliable for plenty of comic articles I've submitted that have been approved as new articles, as have others I believe to have more detail that would help with this article (JDM, Slings & Arrows, Crikey!, possibly even Speakeasy or Back Issue), and generally seem to be considered strong specialist sources. I would like to hear why those sources aren't considered reliable and/or worthy of even consideration before I bother sourcing anything else as it they are somehow suddenly not good enough basically anything else featuring comics is also going to be. And that is going to call the notability of a number of articles I've built around similar sourcing into question, so we might as well nominate all of those and get this shit done. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A brief overview of the avalible sources
      • Starburst: Interview doenst count for notability
      • Bleeding Cool 1: Just a recap of appearances
      • Bleeding Cool 2: "x posted a tweet about y"
      • Bleeding Cool 3: Literally just one passing mention
      • Amazing Heroes: Seems decent
      • Wizard: Cant tell as its not on the web but by the title it seems like its talking about Marvel UK and not the character.
      • Comic Book Resources: Another passing meniton of a different Death's Hand character.
      If you can WP:HAY this than by all means go ahead but I cant find anything else usable for notability Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are you dismissing a source that you haven't actually read? That and your begruding acceptance of Amazing Heroes goes to show that your before was entirely online. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. From memory, my re-write was performed largely using sources that had cropped up on another semi-related project, and was likely directed at sourcing up what was already there and possibly removing bald inaccuracies; as the article wasn't new it was never meant to be a finished, definite work (and not just because that's not how Wikipedia should work). As such I believe my decision to not write a "Reception" section was down to choice as I probably moved back to what I was 'meant' to be doing, rather than there being a lack of any material that could be used. As said, there are likely review sources of both character and selected appearances out there, just probably not on Google. I say this every time someone does a web-based before, but there are always some who choose to ignore it - a lot of decent specialist resources are not online, at least not in an easily-searchable format. But I am not pulling physical media from storage four days before Christmas if someone somewhere has just decided specialist publications don't count anymore. Once again though, this is a nomination of an article that just needs work but will likely get deleted because AfD is a broken system and you all just like deleting things. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (personally I'd have centred the article around the publication with the development of the character and guest appearances as background and DHII as a separate article along the same lines, and probably left it unfinished with thoughts of going back one day, but there's no point in doing that at this juncture either until someone finishes deciding on the magic list of reliable sources) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Without anything other than primary and unreliable sources, there is nothing to keep here. Jontesta (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are unreliable? Some may or may confer notability, but I'd be interested to hear which are unreliable. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus. But if this article has a Redirect or Merge outcome, is List of Marvel Comics characters: D an acceptable target article/section?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If (ha, joking, when) the article is redirected to the increasingly unwieldy, poorly sourced, hard to edit and hard to read character list which editor is going to compressing and rewriting it to be an appropriate level of detail? Or is it just going to be the usual "Redirect and leave it to someone else at some point probably"? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Fictional_characters