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.
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:
I'm not seeing any evidence of individual notability here. While the unused scripts of Rise of Skywalker have coverage, Valum has absolutely none. The Yahoo source is referring to the script exclusively (With only one mention of Valum in the whole article), ScriptShadow doesn't seem to have a proper editorial team and is thus unreliable, LRMOnline seems reliable at a glance but is still almost exclusively covering the script as a whole, with Valum only a part of it, while CBR has no bearing on notability per WP:VALNET. The development is entirely about the script, with the Polygon source and the Collider source not even mentioning Valum. There's no evidence of this character having notability separate from the script. Additionally, the current uploaded image for Valum is a copyright violation, as it has been uploaded to the Commons with no attribution. Additionally, while it isn't an exact match (And Earwig won't let me check this myself) the plot summary in the article is highly similar to the summary found here:
https://unpublished-villains.fandom.com/wiki/Tor_Valum in numerous areas, and appears to be at the bare minimum partial plagiarism. This article seems to fall afoul of multiple different issues.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Star Wars: Duel of the Fates - Not only non-notable in general, it seems from the little bit of coverage about him that he was not even a particularly major character in the unproduced script. Many of the sources being used here just very briefly mention the character while summarizing the leaked script, and several of them don't even mention the character at all, making this look like a case of
WP:REFBOMBING. At best, this can just be redirected to the main article on the unproduced film, where he is already mentioned in the plot summary.
Rorshacma (
talk)
23:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect per Rorshacma. This can't be made into a substantial article with reliable sources, likely because it never had a public reception. Sometimes unreleased content can be
WP:NOTABLE, but most of the time it isn't.
Shooterwalker (
talk)
00:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Star Wars: Duel of the Fates as there does not appear to be significant coverage about this character in reliable, third-party sources. I think a redirect would be preferable to outright deletion as this is a viable search term that readers could use.
Aoba47 (
talk)
23:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect per Rorshacma. The Development section doesn't even have any secondary sources that mention Tor Valum, just Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker Expanded Edition.
hinnk (
talk)
04:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Was changed from a redirect by a new user, simply not seeing any amount of standalone notability for this character whatsoever; in my opinion it fails GNG clearly and the redirect should be restored.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
23:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I believe that Wookipedia entries are Creative Commons, but it's not a good look for someone to come in and immediately just start copypasting articles regardless.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
02:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
While the issue isn't one of conversation regarding the subject in the referenced media outlets, the problem is more one that the article's subject matter and reception is strictly within the scope of World of Warcraft: there is no indication of notability outside of that, discussion or examination. They are essentially less a fictional character race and more a gameplay mechanic that strictly matters within the context of the game itself. This is similar to how the previously AfD'd
Gnasher Shotgun was strictly a gameplay element of Gears of War.
Attempts to try and find more sourcing proved fruitless, especially with Google Scholar. Additionally SUSTAINED is also a concern, as beyond the initial announcement the subsequent articles were in a short time span to each other.
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Not really sure how someone can look at the article and come out with "there are no reliable sources" "this lacks notability" besides a gross failure of
WP:BEFORE. The
Game Informer article,
Polygon article,
PC Gamer article,
PCGamesN article and a 2nd
Polygon article are all SIGCOV about the Dracthyr that easily exceed the threshold for GNG. As for the idea of "notability outside the scope of WoW", I'm not sure what policy this is trying to argue it violates; I suppose
WP:INDISCRIMINATE? The article does discuss the "development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of the subject, and articles on fictional races are not uncommon. So how exactly is this different? It flummoxes me what the deletion rationale is here.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: I am similarly flummoxed. Yes, a World of Warcraft race is discussed as part of World of Warcraft; being discussed in context is not a negative. Independent discussion on Google Scholar is unlikely, and not necessary to demonstrate notability.
Toughpigs (
talk)
19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment @
User:Zxcvbnm Zx there are many times I've tried to assume good faith with you, but at no point did I say "there are no reliable sources" or even imply that. You have been on a *really* bad tear with bad faith lately. As it stands the point was that the article's reception is discussing a *fictional* race strictly in the context of a gameplay element. Key word: fictional. The sources you thumped there are all within the same short time span, and all examine the subjet in the scope of a *gameplay* element. There is no discussion regarding design or examination of them as a race. This is no different than trying to do an article on a Pokemon and strictly focusing on how good or bad it was in terms of gameplay for its particular generation. Any other fictional race article still illustrates some reaction or examination beyond just the gameplay element. Additionally
User:Toughpigs at no point did I ascertain Google Scholar was the only outlet, just one observation that even there there was nothing as scholarly works tend to be a go-to on this subject. The problem is not that it's discussed in the context of WoW, but that it is *only* discussed in that context and strictly a gameplay context. If you're going to oppose that's fine but don't mischaracterize my argument.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
To be clear, the argument they are only spoken of in gameplay terms is completely false; the last paragraph in the article argues the journalist's opinion that the Dracthyr were shoehorned into WoW's lore and story. I personally believe that specific discussion about their role in the story is not a necessary step to prove notability, but, even if it were, this would still pass by your very own criteria.
I do admit that was not exactly what I meant, but it was not meant in "bad faith". I will edit it to clarify with better wording.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
20:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That by itself is at least something, but it still feels hard to justify a stand alone article on the subject (and strengthens Pokelego's point about it being a more viable merge into a Dragonflight article). SIGCOV is just one aspect of an article, but the actual content of a discussion needs to be considered. I feel sometimes you rush to make sure you have sources just to satisfy perceived policy, but itself isn't the only deciding factor on an article. Case in point, the recent discussion about Ornstein and Smough. It's not just about meeting that
WP:THREE threshold. The reader neeeds to understand the significance of this subject with no prior knowledge to WoW or gaming too.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
20:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge with
World of Warcraft: Dragonflight. Basically every source in the Reception section is discussing how the Dracthyr affected gameplay of the game, but there's no indication of notability aside from that. The Dracthyr are essentially just a gameplay mechanic. Outside of a brief snippet of PC Gamer in the first paragraph and the Polygon source in the last paragraph, none of the sources are showing any impact of the Dracthyr outside of the context of World of Warcraft, and simply show the impact of the expansion they were introduced in on gameplay of the game. It feels more logical to me this is covered at the Dragonflight article, since basically everything about the Dracthyr are in the context of Dragonflight. Someone curious about the Dracthyr's impact on the game are better off going to what actually changed the game, instead of a gameplay mechanic that is part of the expansion. I'm not opposed to this being split out if more sources proving notability separate from the expansion are found, but right now there's really not that much.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
20:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As I stated above, there is literally commentary on how they impact the game's plot. The "just a gameplay mechanic" argument does not hold any water.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
20:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As I stated in my vote, there is very little sourcing showing considerable impact. Just because there are two sources is not enough to separate the concept from the base expansion, and can easily be included in the Dragonflight article, where the bulk of this information is most relevant.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
21:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Articles being written on the race is in itself proof of outside impact, just as reviews of games are. Playing as the race has impacted someone enough to critique it. Suggesting that an article's subject must be discussed in a scholarly context to be viable as a standalone page is plain ridiculous and there is no policy like this.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
21:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think that's inherently true. For example, Pokémon species routinely get articles about them, but we understand that as routine coverage, much like how we may consider it routine coverage to discuss the impact of a new race or class in an MMO. What outside impact is demonstrated in the sources? Every source is written in a comparatively short period of time, and they're all written in the context of how the Dracthyr impacts the expansion. Are there any articles that go outside the initial period the articles listed are written in? For an MMO, the notion that this race is discussed only in a seven-month period feels like it speaks little of its independent notability. -
Cukie Gherkin (
talk)
00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge. The sources seem to treat Dracthyr as a gameplay mechanic first and foremost, which is not compelling to me that this is a significant subject beyond significant as part of Dragonflight. -
Cukie Gherkin (
talk)
21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's sourcing. The GNG is met, and arguments that this is a gameplay mechanic first and foremost aren't germane to whether it has garnered multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources. I'm not opposed to an editorial merge, and it's a far superior ATD to deletion, but such a merger should not be forced by AfD when the sourcing is sufficiently robust to support a standalone article.
Jclemens (
talk)
06:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per
WP:MERGEREASON and
WP:NOPAGE. Just because a subject might be notable doesn't mean it needs its own article unless it's truly holds its own, which this does not. Taking a read for it myself, it seems to require a proper understanding of World at Warcraft, which violates
MOS:VG and could stray into fandom territory. I don't see why the material from this page couldn't be merged into
World of Warcraft. λNegativeMP116:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Can you point out where the "game guide" is within the article, and how each of the aforementioned above sources are trivial coverage? It contains no "how to" content for how to play the game, only an analysis of a particular race/class from a critical and development perspective. I would like more of an explanation as to how these are insufficient rather than a
WP:VAGUEWAVE.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
04:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That is not vaguewave, so I don't know why you're claiming that the user was doing that. They explained why they felt it wasn't in adherence, you disagreeing doesn'r make it vague. -
Cukie Gherkin (
talk)
02:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Does not have
WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An
WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of objects from a television program, such as "Celery". A lot of this is
WP:OR, both in the content, and the arbitrary way in which non-notable objects are selected for inclusion.
Jontesta (
talk)
23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Only objects I'm iffy on are Eye of Harmony, Psychic Paper, and Vortex Manipulator due to all three being important recurring elements in the series that lack a viable redirect. Maybe
The Doctor (Doctor Who) for Psychic Paper,
Gallifrey for Eye of Harmony, and
Jack Harkness for Vortex Manipulator? I'm not sure.
Either way, this list is, per nom, very CRUFTy, and I've honestly been meaning to getting rid of it myself. I will note per nom that most of these objects are at least the recurring (Meaning they're not really "non-notable") but there definitely is a lack of inclusion criteria and not much showcasing the list needs to be a separate thing from the other viable redirect targets for most if not all of the entities.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
23:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete There is no discussion in the article about why the items as a group are notable. It is an indiscriminate list.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
19:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as a merge target of multiple NN other articles. The topic of the list is 'Doctor Who' not 'Doctor Who Items' so the topic is clearly notable, even though many of the individual elements are clearly not, which per
WP:CSC is a textbook application: These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles.
Jclemens (
talk)
06:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Zxcvbnm - The couple of notable entries in this list already have their own individual articles, and the remainder are non-notable topics that are either poorly sourced or have no sources at all outside of Dr. Who itself. The overall topic of Dr. Who being notable does not mean that lists of random, vaguely related topics can't also fall under being
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I have no objection to individual redirects being created, as suggested by Pokelego999.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. I have no idea what this proposal is asking a closer to do ("retarget"?). Is it an argument to Keep this article? I'm not concerned with items on this list, I need to know what should happen to this specific article, in its totality. It's Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge or Draftify, those are your options from a closer's point of view. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Liz In this case, those arguing delete/retarget is asking for the closer to delete the article, I believe, while the redirects are sorted out individually on the editor side of things, though to any editors who voted Delete and disagree, feel free to speak your minds.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
02:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is
WP:OR of a list of watercraft from batman comics. Even when you hone in on a discrete topic, it's sourced to angelfire. It has no independent reliable sources. There isn't
WP:SIGCOV for any of these boats / submarines / scooters / etc.
Jontesta (
talk)
23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, or Merge reliably independently cited content into another article if relevant. Most of this article is uncited, and most of it is trivia, and most of the cited content is not cited to independent
WP:RS. --
Softlavender (
talk)
03:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify I agree that the article is mostly uncited, and that article mainly mentions its appearances. I feel the article should be
taken back to draftspace, where it can be further researched-on and improved. It is notable, as anyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is. Right now, it definitely doesn't deserve mainspace. MKat your service.12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"[A]nyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is" does NOT mean the topic is notable, particularly not per Wikipedia's notability standards for article subjects. Nor is the quoted statement true, since the boat certainly does not occur in every episode or every game, etc.
Softlavender (
talk)
01:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Unlike the article on, say, the
Batmobile, this article is not really about a single, coherent topic, and is just a list of a bunch of unrelated watercraft that various incarnations of Batman happened to use, relying almost entirely on non-reliable sources. If anyone suggests a viable Redirect target, I am fine with that as an ATD, but a Merge anywhere would be out of the question due to the poor quality of the sources being used.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
RedirectDelete - per nom, is largely unsourced fancruft. Not particularly supportive of drafting, as I don't particularly think this is o r of those things more time will solve...
Sergecross73msg me14:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Revising stance. I still don't believe its a notable subject, but it is a plausible search term, and can easily be mentioned at
Batman#Technology. I don't see any "size" issues because much of the contents of this article should not be mentioned there.
Sergecross73msg me17:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Zxcvbnm those two books seem to be plot summary to me. Additionally, the second book appears to be a primary source, while the first book appears to be an unauthorized encyclopedia that is not actually analyzing anything, and only giving plot details or summary information. The final source appears to be development info that doesn't contribute to showing independent notability, and is better off covered at
Batman Forever. None of these show any independent coverage from the source.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
20:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Being "unauthorized" has no bearing on whether a source can be used - we are not a fan wiki. DK books are not primary; they are published by
Dorling Kindersley, a known encyclopedia publisher.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Apologies, then, on misconstruing the books. I could've sworn at one point that "unauthorized" books were unable to be used, and I misread the publisher on the second. Either way, they're still only plot details and summaries of what it is with no real significant commentary. The sources don't really do much to show significant impact, especially since encyclopedias of various subjects are pretty standard fare in numerous big fandoms and often only give summary over commentary.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
21:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I do admit that, at least in this case, there doesn't seem to be commentary on the Batboat that would make it pass
WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but it is clear that the
WP:BEFORE here has come up wanting and needs more work. Hence, "weak keep" until someone decides to actually do an exhaustive search and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no external commentary on the impact or influence of the Batboat's existence.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If they aren't independent sources covering the Batboat in a context that would actually illustrate independent notability, then they aren't worth bringing up in the nomination and certainly wouldn't count in a BEFORE as being enough to salvage the article. If the sources you're using as an example of "the BEFORE not being done" are sources typically ignored in a BEFORE for not being significant coverage, then I'm not sure what your argument really is here. I can't speak on the nominator's BEFORE without them clarifying (To which I ask @
Jontesta to clarify just in case) but if the target article isn't notable then it shouldn't be kept solely on the basis of a
Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not a "sources must exist" argument. I have proven the article is notable beyond a doubt, whether it passes
WP:NOT is still unclear, but the current deletion rationale has been totally negated at this point.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
How have your sources in any way proven notability? Even in the case of the nom's rationale being faulty, there's been nothing asserted by those sources in the way of actual real-world relevancy beyond having plot summary in two Batman encyclopedias, which cover all manner of Batman-related content, regardless of notability, and dev info for specific movies. There's no notability asserted that is independent of its parent franchise in a manner that requires a split from any other article. I don't believe the nom is wrong either, since, per a search, the only mentions of the Batboat I could was
this and references to unrelated boats named after the Batboat that don't show notability in the slightest, and I can find nothing in Books or Scholar that isn't just more Batman encyclopedias or unrelated objects named Batboat. Batman's Batboat literally has nothing in the way of significant coverage.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
While helpful and good information, there's still not much showing a significant real world notability, given that this is one source discussing one film's production, which can easily be shifted to the main article for the film.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
21:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
My technology section at Batman claim is that it would be the only other place to mention the Batboat as some of Batman's other vehicles are already listed in that section. --
Rtkat3 (
talk)
15:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I know that "technology of..." articles are almost always cruft, but I'd support this being merged if the tech section was split into a
Technology of Batman article. It appears that a large amount of his gadgets and tech are rather notable, with at least a whole book having been written about them.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
06:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Besides the book, I found an article
here from reliable source GamesRadar+, and an article on
tech and various superheroes that includes a lot of coverage for Batman, focusing on how he is a "powerless" superhero who mostly relies on tech.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
22:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's sourcing. Merging to Batman#Technology sounds like a recipe for SIZE issues, but is certainly a better ATD than outright deletion. Creating
Technology of Batman as a
WP:SS parent for the various articles seems like the superior way forward.
Jclemens (
talk)
06:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus yet. Opinion is divided, primarily between Keep and Redirect/Merge to
Batman#Technology. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. There are clearly two topics that could be this entry. Having this lead to a disambiguation page prevents accidental links from happening as bots notify users when adding these. There is zero upsides to deleting or redirecting this.
Gonnym (
talk)
06:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Alex Danvers, in the light of comments below.
Delete: Disambiguation page only links to one article, the other is just an article where the second subject is mentioned. —
Mjks28 (
talk)
03:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Alex Danvers. The only two topics are the character (who has a standalone article) and a TV show episode named after that character (which does not have a standalone article). A hatnote is definitely sufficient for dealing with the small number of people who would want to go to the list entry about the episode.
QuicoleJR (
talk)
23:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, again. Arguments are almost evenly divided between those wanting to Keep the page and those advocating a Redirect (with a few Delete opinions mixed in). So, we need some more policy-based arguments or some participants reconsidering their "votes". No consensus closures tend to make all sides dissatisfied so that is the last resort if nothing changes here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Alex Danvers with hatnote per Quicole above. As has been mentioned, the episode is stand-alone and is referencing the character regardless.
I'm unclear how this responds to my concern. An editor using the link
Alex (Supergirl) for the episode now gets a warning they added a disambiguation link to an article. If this changes to a redirect to the character, it won't happen and it might not be fixed. How is changing this to a redirect helpful?
Gonnym (
talk)
12:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I still think deletion is the right choice. If the "Alex" episode had its own article it would be a different matter, but as there is no article for it, having a disambiguation page wouldn't be helpful. --
Mjks28 (
talk)
13:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply