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

Tommy Clark

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

Google search only returns brief mentions/plot summaries that do not contribute to notability. Has been tagged for notability since June 2022. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prester Jon

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

No sources cited since 2009! Fails GNG Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:BEFORE makes it hard to separate this from Prester John but I don't see this passing WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Team Titans - Doing various searches on both his hero name and "real" name is turning up next to nothing outside of fan wikis, so its a clear failure of the WP:GNG. He is already covered in the article on his team (though that article, itself, is of dubious notability) so Redirecting there is sufficient. Rorshacma (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Team Titans agree this will never pass GNG and a this is a good redirect target. Team Titans should be able to pass GNG since the article is about the real world comic book series rather than just the fictional team. Rhino131 (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Team Titans - Does not seem to fullfil notability requirements, but a redirect to where the character already appears in context is helpful to the interested reader. And WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Daranios (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Team Titans, no objection. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Striking sock !vote. Daniel (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Knight

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

Protagonist of non-notable series. Boleyn (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The series, or at least the books, are notable from what I've found, but the protagonist isn't. Since there's no article for the series/book, the only option is to delete. If such an article is created, this could be redirected there instead. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely this article covers the series ? RGCorris (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the name of the article should be changed to "Aberystwyth Noir" rather than the name of the main protagonist ? RGCorris (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Despite the title of the article, the contents are clearly covering the actual book series, rather than the main character. If there are enough sources to build a reception section, I would be fine with the article simply being renamed to "Aberystwyth Noir" and cleaned up a bit. I just did a very cursory search and didn't find a whole lot covering the series as a whole, but it seems like the individual books got some reviews. Failing that, the title should probably still be changed to "Aberystwyth Noir" and used as a redirect to Malcolm Pryce#Aberystwyth noir. Rorshacma (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can see that there might be a notable series here, but that would be the subject of a different article. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refocus and move to Aberystwyth noir as the book series. That's also how it's linked from the author Malcolm Pryce. The book series seems to pass GNG at a quick glance. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename/refocus on book series. We have a few straggler articles like this, where it’s written after the protagonist and not the series, and when the series is notable it’s best to refocus and not delete. A lot of the plot would be reusable for that so it’s not quite like writing a whole different article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odo Island

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

Non-notable fictional place. Maybe could be merged into the Monsterverse article. –DMartin 07:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –DMartin 07:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually, if something would be merged, I'd say that you could merge it into Godzilla (1954 film) since thats where it was first introduced as. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Merging to Monsterverse would not make sense, as this is not a location that is part of that franchise. I don't think there is really anything to merge here, but a Redirect would probably be a good idea. Possibly to Godzilla (1954 film) as suggested above, as that is the first of the two movies where it actually played any kind of role in the plot. Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agree with Rorshacma. Should be redirected either with Godzilla (1954 film) or Godzilla (franchise) (since it shows up in other films besides '54). This article has no significant importance to warrant its existence. Armegon (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Godzilla (franchise) per above, no significant information findable in reliable sources. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 22:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all. This isn't notable, but might be a valid search term, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madripoor

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

Does not pass WP:SIGCOV. Article is mainly unsourced or referenced to unreliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Islands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a couple of detailed analyses ELS-JISH, IGN, as well as three that I would consider borderline: Embodying Antiracist Christianity, ScreenRant, and Collider. Meets GNG, and there are other sources that don't per se contribute to notability that can be used to flesh this out. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @Jclemens: or merge with the regions and countries section of Features of the Marvel Universe in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having just reviewed Power Broker (The Falcon and the Winter Soldier) for GA, I think there are sources in that article at least that could be mined for this one, though they may be MCU-centric. – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latveria

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

Does not pass WP:SIGCOV. Article is mainly unsourced or referenced to unreliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The references are reliable enough for a comic-book article; and the books in the further reading and references section seem independent and reliable enough. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor Doom. All content related to Latveria is intrinsically linked to Doctor Doom and better covered there. I checked the sources used in the article, and the only one used that acts without being entirely tied to Doctor Doom is The Hidden Europe: What Eastern Europeans Can Teach Us, where it is used only in a humorous manner when the author describes Latvia, and is not really significant coverage as a result. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the references already included this conference presentation, which does not appear immediately online, appears to be substantially about this fictional kingdom. Jclemens (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens is there a way to access this presentation? It looks promising, but we can't verify its contents unless it's available to read. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't tried. Gray literature like this often appears in proceedings of a conference which are often not well distributed or archived online, but it'd likely be possible to find the author's email address and request a copy. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, emailed the author a request about it. Not hard to find, he does other stuff on Dr. Doom like this, and has a literal PhD in Dr. Doom, (looks like his dissertation is now a book, Data and Doctor Doom: An Empirical Approach To Transmedia Characters, but too pricey for me to pick up just to see if this is included) so he likely counts as a topical expert. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being the contents can't be verified, so until we know its contents, I'm not sure we can count this for notability for the time being. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what WP:OFFLINE actually says. A more relevant critique might be that multiple sources from the same origin are often counted as a single source for purposes of notability, which appears to apply in this case. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there’s this:

https://core.ac.uk/works/18757010/

pdf here:

https://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/id/eprint/14126/1/LatverianIncursions.pdf Sententia Noveboracensis (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same info the author emailed me back. This is already in the article as it stands now as the final reference. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; sufficient sourcing. While a substantial part of the content should be removed, it would still be too long to merge to Doctor Doom. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and the respectful reasons done by @DoctorWhoFan91:, @Jclemens:, and @Walsh90210:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen Victoria

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

Non-notable fork of Queen Vic Fire Week, which has more and better sources. Coverage of this location is incidental to the other article, leaving this article as filled with unsourced material and failing WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dickens Hill

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

This is mostly without sources, or sourced to the BBC, which doesn't approach WP:SIGCOV. Most of the article is plot recap which is already covered at the character articles. Jontesta (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Whilst it can be argued that the plot is overly detailed, I see no reason to delete this article as it is a significant and length story arc which was a prominent part of the soap during this period. Rillington (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust (Marvel Comics)

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

No secondary sources, notability dubious PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE did not procure coverage to pass WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of X-Men enemies#Other recurring antagonists in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Does have a bit of reception in this MSN article. CBR can be used as a situational source rather than there being No secondary sources. There's also an interesting bit of real-world commentary in 1000 Facts about Comic Book Characters, p. 15. I wonder if this can be verified with an additional source. So I also believe this character does not have the notability for a stand-alone article, but think that it deserves a mention in a list in accordance with WP:ATD-M. Daranios (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That books looks like it was published by Lulu.com, which I believe is just a self-publishing platform, so I don't think the information in it can actually be used as a reliable source. Rorshacma (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of X-Men enemies#Other recurring antagonists - Already covered at the target list, so a Redirect there is fine. I honestly don't see anything worth merging (the only secondary source being used for "Reception" is a Valnet site "Top Ten" style list) but the history will be there if anyone wants to move anything over. Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Who (Dalek films)

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

From what BEFORE I could undertake, I could find nothing discussing this character independently from the movies he starred in. While sources discuss and verify the character's existence, there is very little independent coverage discussing this character that would verify his notability outside of his source movies. Admittedly not sure on a viable AtD due to the character's unique naming, but regardless this character fails notability on his own. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with the nom that there is not really any coverage of the character separate from the coverage of the two movies he appeared in, both of which already have full articles discussing them including the non-canon incarnation of the Doctor that appeared in them. Perhaps a Selective Merge to the main The Doctor article as a viable ATD? Currently that article only has a link to this page under the "See Also" section, so perhaps a couple sentences could be added to the main part of the article simply describing how a non-canon version of the Doctor played by Peter Cushing appeared in two films, with links to each of the films. Rorshacma (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly into the film articles? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What does discussing this character independently from the movies mean? The character does not exist independently of the movies, like no fictional character can exist divorced from the medium it was created in. Sources like British Science Fiction Cinema, p. 119 and following, this Nerdist and this Inverse article discuss the character directly in a significant way, thus fullfilling the minimum requirements of WP:GNG and WP:WHYN. There are also many secondary sources which comment on the character in shorter fashion, including those already listed in the article or A Critical History of Doctor Who on Television p. 395-397, so there is no shortage of material or number of sources to write a full article. Additionally there's Dr. Who & The Daleks, which probably is not independent(?), but can still add and verify material fitting to an encyclopedic article. The topic could also be covered divided up to The Doctor#Actors and the two film articles. But as there is no one article discussing the two films together, there would need to be some duplication or splitting of material, which I personally find less helpful to the interested reader than just covering things here in one place. Daranios (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios The Inverse source is pretty solid, but I'm admittedly a bit less sold on the Nerdist source, which is primarily focused on discussing the two films, with Dr. Who only getting a paragraph to himself within the entire editorial. Could you clarify what parts are discussed in those book sources you linked? I don't have access to all the pages and I admittedly am missing where the character is discussed in the book, so I would appreciate it if you could point out where those bits are. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think most important is p. 119 in British Science Fiction Cinema. Aside from things around casting Peter Cushing, which appear in many sources, it not only details the character of this Dr. Who and how it differs from the previous version and how this is achieved, but also what the purpose of these differences was: "very epitome of kindly, if eccentric, grandfather ... actively invites identification from the child audience", etc. Most of p. 119 deals with the Doctor. Pp. 120-121 to a larger degree deal with other characters (with arguably commentary on the Doctor's companions being material within the scope of our article here, they already have an established section), but also have further bits of characterization of Peter Cushing's Doctor. I've listed the pages for A Critical History. Again praise for Peter Cushing ("nothing less than an inspired decision. Who better to face off against the evil Daleks than the man who had repeatedly defeated Dracula?"), how the character was changed and a simpler explanation for the why (original origin "was too complex"), collected critical reception from other sources ("Cushing...is properly whimsical"). In Dr. Who & The Daleks, comments on the Doctor appear throughout, but I think especially relevant are pp. 30-31, and then there's the chapter dedicated to Peter Cushing, p. 44-47. Daranios (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios could you show me some of these quotes from Dr. Who & The Daleks? I'm unable to view the book at all. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have the Dr. Who & the Daleks book, and here's a quote from page 44:
"When the question came up about the differences between his own on-screen portrayal of the first Doctor and that of William Hartnell, Cushing had devised a very clever answer worthy of the Time Lord himself. Cushing was a fan of the series but didn't watch it religiously due to the pressures of work at the time. 'One of the few episodes of the Doctor Who series that I saw involved a kind of mystical clown ('The Celestial Toymaker'), and I realised that perhaps he kidnapped Doctor Who and wiped his memory and made him relive some of his earlier adventures. With Bill Hartnell turned into Patrick Troughton and changed his appearance, that idea seemed more likely. I think that's what happened, so I think those films we did fit perfectly well into the TV series.'"

There's similar material on pages 30-31:
"Both actors [Hartnell and Cushing] were playing a much older man for their respective roles: William Hartnell was 57 years old in 1965 and Cushing 52. Cushing's Doctor appears to be around 70 years old... Cushing plays the Doctor as an Earthling, to accommodate American audiences' lack of knowledge of the UK series. In the short term this simplified the narrative, but in the long-term was frowned upon by some viewers and film critics."

There's more, but I think that's enough to establish that there's significant coverage of the character in the Dr. Who & the Daleks book. Also, to answer Daranios' question above, the book is independent — it's a non-fiction book about the films published by Titan Books in 2022, which has no relationship with the BBC or the film companies. Toughpigs (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the sources provided above by Daranios, particularly Dr. Who & the Daleks and A Critical History of Doctor Who on Television. Toughpigs (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I feel the coverage provided is rather light, and I'm not sure how much more will be able to be added to the article from it, I do concur that this seems to be decent enough coverage to provide merit for a split, primarily due to the fact both The Doctor and the Dalek films are unviable "clean" merge targets. I'll withdraw for the time being to allow for some improvements to Dr. Who's article using the sources above, but I do feel if The Doctor's article is ever cleaned up, it may be wise to consider a merger there. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rag Doll (character)

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

Fails WP:GNG weak sourcing Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Flash enemies where the character already has an entry. The Starman villain is so minor it does not need a mention and the in other media versions are already included in lists on the tv show pages. Rhino131 (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG without better sourcing. Jontesta (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: R in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 18:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Firestorm enemies

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

WP:OR without independent sources or any justification of the notability of the group. Fails other policies about what Wikipedia is not, like "Wikipedia is not a directory". Jontesta (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Firestorm in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and send any redirects to that page to their respectful List of DC Comics characters pages. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced list, most entries of which are minor, non-notable characters. Even most of the blue links are just redirects to unsourced entries in other character lists. No objection against actually adding sourced information to the Firestorm (character) article regarding notable, reoccurring adversaries such as Killer Frost, but merging would not be appropriate due the complete lack of sources here. Rorshacma (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We can still WP:PRESERVE bits of this information on the Firestorm page just like how @Shooterwalker: proposed in the AFD discussion for the List of Hawkman enemies. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Ordinarily, I'd Merge as an ATD but there is an argument against doing so and I'd like to hear more opinions on what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Huaguo

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

WP:BEFORE shows that this is barely mentioned in reliable sources which is not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. There may be other elements of the novel that could be notable but this is a very minor element. Jontesta (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 1.47.210.41 (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's only on the 53rd page of Google Scholar results for the pinyin version of the article subject that you start academic papers without the pinyin in the title. Almost all of them are inaccessible to me, but from what is accessible, it seems there is a lot of in-depth research. For example, this Korean paper [1][2] is a 30+ page article analyzing the location from a Buddhist perspective and appears in an accredited journal indexed by the Korean Studies Information Service System and DBpia, both of which are used by western research libraries (e.g. [3] [4] from the University of Toronto). Can you explain why your BEFORE research led you to conclude that literally 100s of Chinese scholarly articles with the subject in the title actually barely mention the subject? Although the article would obviously be improved by citations, WP:NEXIST seems to obviously apply here. Perhaps reaching out to editors who are more familiar with and have access to Chinese-language sources would be helpful (e.g. WP:CHINA) instead of deletion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources that talk about the setting, but not this singular setting. The Flaming Mountains are one such example of a notable article, or even the identically named Mount Huaguo (Jiangsu) that we don't want to confuse this mountain with. I have not seen evidence that this is notable as a singular and distinct article. Jontesta (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally provided an example of an article that is about the fictional setting. The title of the Korean article is "A Buddhist reading about Mountain of Flowers and Fruits(花果山) in Journey to the West(西遊記)". That is obviously not about any real life location.

Filtering the results to also include "西遊記" ("Journey to the West") allows us to home in on again, multiple pages of articles about the fictional mountain. For example: "汤克勤. "自由家园的建构与超越——《西游记》“花果山” 新解." 广州大学学报: 社会科学版 10, no. 3 (2011): 60-65. (via Google Translate: Tang Keqin. "The Construction and Transcendence of a Free Homeland: A New Interpretation of "Mount Huaguo" in Journey to the West." Journal of Guangzhou University: Social Sciences Edition 10, no. 3 (2011): 60-65.) and 许兆康. "试析《西游记》之花果山的真实地点." 神州民俗 4 (2011): 150-153. (via Google Translate: Xu Zhaokang. "An Analysis of the Real Location of the Flower-Fruit Mountain in Journey to the West." Chinese Folklore 4 (2011): 150-153) both appear to be focused on the fictional mountain foremost.

I'm not familiar enough with the research, but if the Huaguo in Jiangsu has academic consensus for being the inspiration for the literary version, then perhaps a merger is warranted as an alternative to deletion. At the very least, there appear to be many academic articles describing how Lianyungang has used the connection for tourism, though some articles seem to propose alternate locations. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some of those sources discuss Mount Huaguo (Jiangsu), the real location. I still don't see how this interpretation of it justifies a second alternative article. (The Korean article doesn't focus on the right mountain.) I can see the good faith in discussing an WP:ATD like merge, but there would be very little to keep since this article is totally without sources. Jontesta (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided prima facie proof that at least three scholarly articles are primarily focused around the fictional mountain, which is usually enough to meet WP:GNG. I do not have access to these articles/do not read Korean, but given the very high amount of Google Scholar hits for both the mountain and the work, it seems very likely that more academic work on the matter exists.

"The Korean article doesn't focus on the right mountain" Not sure what you're talking about here. The title of the Korean article is "A Buddhist reading about Mountain of Flowers and Fruits(花果山) in Journey to the West(西遊記)". As far as I know, there is only one Huaguoshan in the book. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to User:Patar knight's points above, there are several sources cited at zh:花果山 (西遊記) about different theories as to what real mountains the fictional mountain may have been based on. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mount Huaguo (Jiangsu) where this is already covered. Journey to the West takes place in the (mythologized) real world and we don't have separate JTTW articles for the Silk Road or Emperor Taizong. I would consider a merge, but there is nothing sourced here to WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Of course, this place is fictional, but note that it has been identified with several real-life mountains and a major subject of Chinese literature. In the modern era, many mountain areas have been established as Mount Huaguo, which has become a popular tourist attraction in China. I also oppose merging with Mount Huaguo (Jiangsu), one of many inspirations for the fictional mountain, because it can be misleading. There are more than eight mountains identified as the real Mount Huaguo. This mountain is more notable or significant than Lonely Mountain or any other mountain listed in Category:Fictional mountains. Moreover, Journey to the West is not just a random work of fiction; it is one of the most significant works of Chinese literature. It is perfectly reasonable that characters or places from it have their own pages. The fictional Mount Huaguo is highly discussed by many scholars and historians, and there is a substantial amount of literature to explore and research on the subject. The sources could be improved, and here are many suggestions for scholarly articles in Chinese: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and books [10], [11], [12], Exploring the Mystery of Huaguo Mountain, The Birth of a Flower-Fruit Mountain and news coverage [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. I can see you are a nominator for the deletion of fictional subjects according to your recent contributions. Please note that subjects from major Chinese literature are not comparable to the Western ones you may be familiar with, and they are not the same as the fictional subject articles that you've nominated for deletion through the AfD process. Sacred Chinese novels, such as Investiture of the Gods and Journey to the West, are fictional but intertwined with Chinese folk religion, becoming a national source of spirituality. For example, Sun Wukong is a fictional character in the novel, but the Monkey King is worshipped as a god in the Taoist pantheon, with many temples established in Chinese-speaking regions. These are more than just fictional characters. Yes, Chinese folk traditional culture may be confusing or unfamiliar to white people like you, but please respect Asian culture. Well, note to the nominator: it's fine if you're not knowledgeable in Chinese folklore, but please do some research before making a blind AfD nomination. Thanks. 1.47.210.41 (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I see a rough consensus to Keep this article but I'd like to hear more feedback on the sources brought to this discussion. Please do not make personal attacks against the participants in an AFD, especially based on race or ethnicity. Wikipedia editors are basically anonymous unless they choose to reveal information about themselves so your assumptions are not only inappropriate but likely incorrect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? There is no personal attack. Referring to a Western native as 'white' is not intended as a personal attack or based on their race or ethnicity. The white is officially or legally referring to the Europeans. This is a legal and polite usage. If this usage is marked as a personal attack, trying to change it in the Oxford Dictionary won’t address the issue. Why so serious?. 1.47.210.41 (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you don't know anything about the background of your fellow editors unless they have chosen to disclose this, you don't know their race, ethnicity or nationality and sometimes, you don't know their gender. So don't make assumptions about them about who is "white" and who is "Asian". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep. @Patar knight has provided reliable sources, and an IP editor (despite other statements) has provided additional justification of notability. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources found, notability concerns have been allayed. Daranios (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Magicians characters

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

The article is mostly unsourced or cited to unreliable sources. WP:BEFORE did not indicate WP:SIGCOV but I could understand a redirect to The Magicians (American TV series). Jontesta (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found two further relevant secondary sources: On The Magicians, knowing the system is rigged to crush you is part of becoming an adult, Apocalypse TV, p. 149-163. Daranios (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be more secondary sources dealing with the adaptations of the characters into the TV series than the book versions of the characters, but judging from the nomination I assume we can agree that both types are within the scope of our article here. Now the article currently is in rather bad shape and would likely need trimming but especially additions of sourced commentary: In addition to the two sources above and the Slate article already referenced, We Don’t Need Another Hero: The Magicians’ First Season, Ranking the characters of The Magicians, The Goddess Myth in Contemporary Literature and Popular Culture, Thinking Queerly - Medievalism, Wizardry, and Neurodiversity in Young Adult Texts and Posthumanism in Young Adult Fiction, p. 227-246 all discuss The Magicians characters as a group and individuals to varying degrees. These sources easily provide enough commentary to furnish a full encyclopedic article. And there are many more secondary sources out there which can give more details on some aspect or other of our topic here. So let's not skimp on the WP:BEFORE search! Daranios (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it would be helpful for the nominator to respond to the newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John "Hannibal" Smith

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

Fails WP:GNG tagged for notability since 2021 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Military. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sourced information into List of The A-Team characters#John "Hannibal" Smith due to WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR. There are probably sources out there to demonstrate sufficient notability, but as long as no-one is willing to incorporate them into this article, it makes more sense to cover this as part of the character list. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced information into List of The A-Team characters#John "Hannibal" Smith would indeed be the smart move here. A detailed page on the character itself would be better at home on an A-Team Wiki, but sourced information could be incorporated into Smith's entry on the character list page. TH1980 (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep After a WP:BEFORE search, I found mentions in "A 1980s Childhood", "Crime Fighting Heroes of Television", and "Television Series of the 1980s". Some of these might be WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs but it convinces me that further sources might be out there. I won't stand in the way of a merge if editors feel that is the best course. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time