Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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. 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.
  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

[edit]

Kunimitsu and Kunimitsu II

[edit]
Kunimitsu and Kunimitsu II (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)

I'll be frank: I recognize a lot of work went into this and it feels like a significant passion project. But that said I also recognize there's a lot wrong with this article: several sources feel like they were synthesized to say far more than they did, and a vast majority say really next to nothing.

There's not a lot of indication to give any real-world importance of the character; you get some gameplay commentary but that exists in a bubble related to their relative games and much of it is strictly from reviews. What isn't from reviews is bare bones reaction and a lot of repetition. It just resoundingly fails notability and SIGCOV. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak merge: Though I myself created an article for Kunimitsu a couple years back, I don't see this article holding up very well, given the current standards held for character articles (which I have mixed feelings on, to say the least). There might be a couple good sources in there to help notability, but it's not enough. There is some impressive work in there, but some of the sources are also either questionable or outright unreliable. Fighter's Generation, for instance, is a fan site, thus its unreliable. Also, Event Hubs, which the article heavily cites, is deemed unreliable at WP:VG/S. Some of this content can go in Characters of the Tekken series. MoonJet (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Industry characters

[edit]
List of Industry 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)

A contested redirect, an unreferenced list, and technically too old to draftify. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 14:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quadling Country

[edit]
Quadling Country (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 was brought to my attention after it was brought up in the Wikipedia Discord server, and I did some digging on my own, and this location doesn't seem to be independently notable of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The current article's sources are entirely plot summaries and what appears to be a self-published blog post, and a BEFORE in News, Books, and Scholar turned up nothing except TRIVIALMENTIONS, plot summary, and the text of the original work it was featured in. This article doesn't satisfy GNG given a distinct lack of SIGCOV, and should likely be redirected to Land of Oz, where the subject is mentioned several times and of which Quadling Country is apart of in-universe, as an AtD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The Dictionary of Imaginary Places: Written by a very notable academic (Alberto Manguel) and put out by a reliable publisher, the source looks great on the surface. The issue with it is that as others have stated, it is just an overview of Oz history with no critical insight into any of it. I'd see this as generally usable for notability-purposes, but it's not the strongest possible source when it comes to establishing how a specific country within Oz is notable.
  2. Fairy Tales Reimagined. This was one I added. It's a McFarland book, so definitely usable as a source without question. The book does give some critical overview into the world from what I can see, although it's somewhat mentioned more in relation to the character of Elphaba in Gregory Maguire's Wicked.
  3. Nathan DeHoff blog: This is a SPS, so the issue here is twofold: is this person someone who would be considered a RS enough to overturn the general consensus that SPS are unusable and if so, does the source help establish notability. To answer the first part, I think that DeHoff could generally be considered a RS on the topic of Oz. He's written a few pieces for The Baum Bugle and he was also used as a resource this McFarland book. He's also been published by a couple of the more major, notable Oz organizations. That last part is a bit murky as far as establishing him as a RS goes, but does point towards him being generally considered an authority since those groups are kind of selective. However even if we were to all agree that DeHoff and his blog is usable, the bigger issue is with the second part of the problem. Coverage of the country is pretty light and when some commentary is given, it's not really about the country itself. At best this would make it a general overview of the history/plot of Oz.
I couldn't find any other sources. This leaves us with two sources that summarize the country in relation to Oz history but no critical commentary that would show why this country is independently notable. The other source has commentary, but not enough to do the heavy lifting to make up for the shortcomings of the other two sources. To add to all of this, the country is already generally well covered in the main parent article, to the point where I don't think we really need a spinoff article. I suppose the McFarland source could be used in the Maguire section of the article, but that would be about it. I think a basic redirect would suffice here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Here is an entry in The Wizard of Oz Encyclopedia: The Ultimate Guide to the Characters, Lands, Politics, and History of Oz; although the book seems more like a classroom resource for school teachers. There is some brief analysis/commentary in [1], [2], [3], and a rather odd thesis on cooking in Oz which discusses food and recipes in Quadling Country. I think there is maybe enough WP:SIGCOV to have an article, but ultimately it might just be better to cover this in Land of Oz.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the sources above probably pass GNG, but this has such a high degree of overlap with the other page, is almost entirely in-universe content, and there isn't such an overwhelming amount of material to make it a clear pass, so per WP:PAGEDECIDE it is better to just cover it there PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shanhe University

[edit]
Shanhe University (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)

I do not believe that this article meets the notability criteria. While some news sources have reported on it, it does not appear to be a long-lasting phenomena that would be of relevance to anyone on English Wikipedia. Most sources discussing it seem to merely use it as a vehicle to discuss educational inequality in China, and it doesn't seem to have captured public attention for any notable period of time. --IntergalacticOboist (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shooterwalker. Seems to be a short-lived meme that doesn't really garner enough coverage for even a proper Stub. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Prentiss

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Emily Prentiss (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)

Prentiss is a non-lead character in a TV show, and fails WP:NFICTION, also cross-checking with WP:NBOOK and WP:NFILMCHAR. The most notable aspect of this character (outside of the show narrative itself) is that the actress who portrays the character left the show twice and returned twice. TiggerJay (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that this is the 2nd nom, and the prior result was a merge, and it appears that @User:DocZach brought this article back to life from draft space of their own accord without resolving the concerns originally brought up at the prior AfD. TiggerJay (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we encourage people to do precisely that, especially when they're rewritten the article in question. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed such concerns below. DocZach (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, the basis of my nom had nothing to do with the prior AfD, and thus the "rewrite" is an irrelevant factor, because the principle concerned that came to my attention about this article exists in the current version. It just so happens that the question of this fictional character has come up previously, and the concerns last year happen to be the same concerns that I currently have with the current version. Rather the concern should be if an article survived a AfD/Prod/CSD and then it was hastily brought up again for the same reason. However in this case, it did not survive the first action, and there is clear contention on this relisting. TiggerJay (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware of the effort the restorer spent in improving the article, which means you know, or should know of, the timing involved. To neither mention the currency of the rewrite nor the rewrite itself in your follow up is still unreasonably inconsiderate. Not properly acknowledging such things evokes memories of bad old days' BATTLEGROUND behavior; let's not go there. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for recognizing that. I spent a lot of time researching about this character and writing this article. I have just spent the last few hours revising the article to add more sources and information, and please let me know if you think it looks better now. DocZach (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would agree that many edits (over 17k bytes) DocZach has made which has increased the overall article size, and breadth of coverage. Even an additional 6k since this AfD was raised. Adding plenty of source material to flesh out the various sections that were added. However, size/length has never been the qualifier for inclusion -- hence why many STUBs are acceptable. Rather the question is that beyond simply being that Prentiss appears to be a well written character (ie has a specific personality, with a background, and an evolving role), couldn't be said about anyother main character of a popular TV show? For example, when you look at the main cast of the even longer running NCIS (TV series) with ~130 more episodes, of their NCIS (TV series) § Cast and characters you can see that characters with similar lengths of appearances are simply redirects to a "List Of..." page. Certainly you could fill a page with "verifiable facts" about each character, but that isn't the criteria for having a dedicated article -- that is what fandom and IMDB are for. The majority of things which seem to have received WP:SECONDARY coverage have been far more about Brewster (thus Prentiss tangentially) - for example, the impact of choosing the go grey instead of dying her hair or that she left the show so she could "return to her comedic and sitcom roots". That is real life choices of the actress impacting the character that needed to be accommodated. What might make the noteworthiness is the other way around; if the show creators wanted to make a big statement to the industry by specifically directing the actress to go gray, that then had a domino effect on the industry. Otherwise it's just a random factoid. TiggerJay (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG is met, and even without the VALNET sources, which are just fine in this case. This is a particularly inconsiderate nomination in that the character article has been materially expanded and sources added within the last day or two. Of all the things that need cleaning up in Wikipedia, the notability of contemporary TV show characters is probably one of the least problematic areas. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Redirect - The article is still nothing but detailed plot summary, without any kind of reception or analysis, and the added sources that are not primary or just episode summaries are not really significant coverage on the character. Many, in fact, are just news bits about the actress that portrayed her joining/leaving/returning to the show, rather than any kind of discussion on the actual fictional character that this article is about. Searches really are not bringing much up that is about the character, rather than the actress, that goes beyond summarizing plots. I have no problem if the current article was returned to draft space to be further developed, but its current state was not ready to be moved back to the main space. Rorshacma (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If an article can be improved, then you should propose ways to improve it instead of deleting it because of a reason that doesn't even match the original proposer's logic behind deleting this article. He is arguing about a lack of notability, and you are arguing about the way this article is written. Yes, this article can be improved. No, deleting or redirecting an article is not the solution to issues that can easily be fixed in an article. DocZach (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The premise for this deletion nomination is false. Emily Prentiss is a prominent lead character in the show, and her character has gotten even more notability over the past year due to recent events she has experienced. She is the Section Chief (lead) of the BAU, and if David Rossi is going to have his own article (who is notably less present in the series than Emily Prentiss), then Emily most certainly meets the criteria to have her own as well. I will attach just a few examples of her being mentioned by reliable sources.

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

DocZach (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument - there could very well be reason for David Rossi to also not have an independent article, but that is not what is under discussion here. The sources listed here, like the ones in the article, are either short announcements about the actress leaving/returning to the show, which are not significant coverage of the fictional character at all, or plot summaries that are largely from content farms. How important a character is within the show has no bearing on passing the WP:GNG or whether or not a independent article is appropriate or not. Rorshacma (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the part of the policy that explicitly states, in relation to references to past failed deletions with similar reasoning, "this can be a strong argument that should NOT be discounted because of a MISCONCEPTION that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." DocZach (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ARGUMENT FOR WHY THE ARTICLE SHOULD REMAIN
The Emily Prentiss article satisfies WP:GNG, WP:NFIC, and WP:NFILMCHAR for fictional characters. This article and recent improvements to it address prior concerns from last year's AfD, and it demonstrates the character's significance both inside and outside of the show, Criminal Minds.
----
A) Significant Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources
The article includes multiple secondary sources that provide coverage of Emily Prentiss beyond plot summaries. Examples include:
  1. Looper and Collider: Discuss her leadership roles, character development, and importance to the show’s dynamics.
  2. ScreenRant and The List: Analyze pivotal moments in her story, such as faking her death and her return to the team.
  3. E! Online and TODAY.com: Highlight how her character is discussed in broader cultural contexts, such as Paget Brewster’s decision to embrace her gray hair, which has been woven into the show.
  4. CNN and Yahoo: Covers on her leaving and returning on the show multiple times.
These sources go beyond simple mentions and delve into how Prentiss has been portrayed, her role in the show, and her impact on the series and viewers. I have already attached the references to both the article and this page.
----
B) Prominence as a Lead Character
  • Leadership Roles: Prentiss becomes Unit Chief in Season 12 and later Section Chief, making her one of the show’s most significant characters. She has been in the series since Season 2, and has been a main character throughout most of it.
  • Impact on the Series: Prentiss's arc includes some of the show’s most dramatic and memorable moments (e.g., her undercover mission, faking her death, and leading the BAU). These storylines, especially her faked death, have all been covered by reliable sources numerous times.
----
C) Reception and Real-World Discussion
  • Fan Demand: Her return to the show was largely driven by public outcry, which indicates her importance to the audience.
  • Brewster Herself: Discussions about representation in media, particularly Brewster’s portrayal and refusal to adhere to Hollywood norms, tie directly to her character’s ongoing relevance.
This kind of real-world analysis satisfies WP:NFIC and distinguishes Emily Prentiss from lesser-known characters who belong in a list or merged article.
----
D) RESPONDING TO ORIGINAL DELETION ARGUMENTS
Claim 1: “Most sources are primary”
This is no longer accurate. The article now cites numerous independent, secondary sources, including:
  • Analytical articles (Looper, Collider, ScreenRant).
  • Coverage from established entertainment outlets (E! Online, TODAY.com, CNN, Yahoo).
  • Reviews and discussions of key storylines involving Prentiss.
These sources show significant coverage of Emily Prentiss specifically, not just the show or Paget Brewster.
----
Claim 2: “A Google search doesn’t prove individual notability”
Recent searches reveal ample sources discussing Emily Prentiss’s character arc, leadership role, and real-world impact. The expanded article now demonstrates this with concrete examples and citations, countering this claim.
----
Claim 3: “Not worth a standalone article”
Emily Prentiss is one of the most prominent characters in Criminal Minds. Articles for similar characters, such as David Rossi (which is the other character of the series that has an article), have been maintained despite less coverage and screen presence. Prentiss’s depth, narrative significance, and real-world attention make her more than worthy of her own article.
----
Claim 4: “Should redirect to a list of characters”
Merging Emily Prentiss into a list would strip away the depth of analysis she receives in her standalone article. Her character arc and real-world significance cannot be adequately covered in a brief summary. The current article structure allows for a more nuanced exploration of her impact.
----
  • The article meets GNG by demonstrating significant independent coverage.
  • It incorporates real-world analysis, development, and reception, addressing prior critiques of being overly plot-focused.
  • The character is central to Criminal Minds and its revival, with a clear legacy and cultural relevance.
  • The rewritten article addresses all prior concerns and stands as a notable, well-sourced piece.
Deleting or merging this article would undermine the depth of coverage for one of the most significant characters in Criminal Minds. The current article satisfies all criteria for notability and has been improved significantly since the original deletion request. I am also continuing to improve it regularly, and would definitely appreciate help from others to do so. Deleting the article without any suggestion or discussion of improvement seems unproductive and antithetical to Wikipedia's policies and purpose.
----
DocZach (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (e/c) Stating that a "premise is false" is meaningless without actual support, instead of simply claiming but it's true! However I welcome you to substantiate your claim that the "character has gotten even more notability over the past year." What independent, reliable sources to you have to support that claim that the character's notability has significantly changed in the past year? Simply reposting all of the references from the article is not helpful, as many of them establish Brewster (actress) as notable as her life events and acting career have evolved around this show and character, but Brewster's notability does not automatically transfer to the character she plays. Of the 14 source you provided, many of them were from 2016 and prior. Of the 4 that were published in 2024, two of them were from Screen Rant ("marginally reliable") and 1 from IMDB ("unreliable") and the Yahoo news one focused on the actress, not the character. (For clarification the reliability is based on WP:RSP.) TiggerJay (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:RSPSS, ScreenRant is "considered reliable for entertainment-related topics." The "marginally reliable" attribute applies broadly because it is not recommended to use ScreenRant for "controversial statements related to living persons." DocZach (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how NBOOK applies to this article? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The individual who proposed this article for deletion was the one who brought up the policy "NBOOK." DocZach (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But yeah, NBOOK has no relevance, so I removed that from my statement. DocZach (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the original nom, NBOOK specifically listed as part of a broader "cross-check" for fictional characters, since there is no direct guidelines for fictional TV characters -- instead we have simply fiction, books and films... But to show comprehensive checking for anything else policy related that might apply for a fictional character, those places were also checked since people also desire to create articles about fictional characters from other works, and those guidelines can be helpful when a direct guideline does not exist. Instead we're basically left with WP:N and WP:NFICTION. TiggerJay (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me break down for you step by step the issues with these arguments:
  1. To begin, Looper is unreliable. Screen Rant falls under Wikipedia:VALNET. CNN and Yahoo are just casting announcements, which are not relevant to the fictional character's notability (They would be important when covering the actress). Both CNN sources are just announcements of her casting return. The gray hair source discusses Prentiss's actress and her acceptance of her hair, rather than the character. If the character's hair was discussed, it'd be different, but this is specifically Paget's hair being discussed here. I can't access the Yahoo source, so a new link would be appreciated.
  2. In-universe importance is not relevant to a subject's ability to get an article. This is included in nearly every fictional character guideline in the book. If these things are important, they need reliable sourcing showing that impact to back it up (None of which is illustrated in the sources provided)
  3. Brewster's coverage is Brewster's coverage. Unless there is significant overlap between Prentiss and Brewster, such as an analysis article discussing how Brewster's performance greatly affected how Prentiss's character was formed, for instance, then maybe that could be viable, but all the sources provided are very clearly either about Prentiss or about Brewster, with only mentions about the other. Fan demand is relevant, but needs Wikipedia:SIGCOV to back it up. Additionally, that trivia is summarizable in a sentence or so, easily mergeable back to the character's list.
  4. Most of your claims here I've already responded to (A Google Search one is a weird argument and I don't think it should've applied either way) but on the character list point, the current article has entirely plot information in it. This is summarizable at a list without much being lost, and many of the sources acknowledged at this AfD don't have enough coverage to build up substantial substance in the present one, since many of them are not about Prentiss and instead about Brewster, or fall under the scope of trivial coverage. I can go into a far deeper source analysis if you want clarification, of course.
Overall, there's a distinct lack of SIGCOV that hails from reliable sources, and the coverage doesn't really seem to exist that justifies the separation here. On the topic of Rossi, his AfD seemed to have a very inaccurate close; there was one Keep vote, and yet the AfD was closed as Keep despite two strong Merge arguments. Rossi should probably be rediscussed at a later date, since I don't believe he was discussed in-depth enough during his first AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised much of the article to address much of your guys' concerns. Again, I find the proposal to delete this entire article very inconsiderate when it can very easily be improved rather than deleted. DocZach (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the effort to improve the article, but the issue with the sources, as described throughout the AFD, is still there. Most of the sources are trivial coverage, and nearly the entirety of the sources being used in the new Reception section are about Paget Brewster, the actress, with very minimal discussion about the character. Announcements about Brewster leaving/returning to the cast or articles about Brewster not dying her hair, where the only actual coverage on the fictional character is a sentence or two saying nothing more than it being the character Brewster portrays is just not significant coverage or analysis of the fictional character of Emily Prentiss. One of the articles on her hair does not, as far I can see, even mention the character of Emily Prentiss, so trying to tie sources like that into analysis of the character is starting to drift in to WP:SYNTH territory. Rorshacma (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So your solution is to delete an article that you think has some issues instead of helping improve it first? DocZach (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect. Rorshacma has summed up my thoughts quite nicely above, both in terms of source analysis and on this article's current status. This article is quite literally exactly the same as it was last time, and Jclemens's above showing of page history just shows minor text alterations and nothing more. Nothing has changed that would change the outcome of the last AfD, and the BEFOREs of several editors above have turned up nothing. This has no reason to be a separate article and is better off redirected like it was before. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does David Rossi have his own article when he is a less notable character than Emily Prentiss? DocZach (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, perhaps Rossi should also be up for an AfD... But just because Rossi exists does not mean that Prentiss should exist -- see WP:OTHERSTUFF. TiggerJay (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy you are citing explicitly states:
"Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments, but even here caution should be used. Yet a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates."
The David Rossi article has already received a deletion proposal over a year ago as well for the same reason. The article survived.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rossi DocZach (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Rorshacma, "WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument - there could very well be reason for David Rossi to also not have an independent article, but that is not what is under discussion here." Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the part of the policy that explicitly states, "this can be a strong argument that should NOT be discounted because of a MISCONCEPTION that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." DocZach (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing a key part of that sentence: "If you reference such a past debate". While you have eventually mentioned the prior AfD for Rossi, that was not included in your initial statements regarding the character. You can use the Rossi article to discuss specific points, but the fact that the Rossi article exists is not a good argument. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not solely referencing the fact that the Rossi article exists. I am referencing the fact that there was a deletion attempt on the Rossi article for the SAME reason, and that deletion attempt failed. Under the policy you referenced, that's an appropriate argument. DocZach (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rossi honestly should undergo revaluation. His discussion was closed as Keep with only one detailed Keep and two detailed Merge votes, which doesn't seem to be a proper consensus, especially given the low discussion turnout of that AfD. Besides, similar characters being kept is nowhere precedent. Even though I slightly disagree with the outcome, Vislor Turlough was kept at AfD as a Doctor Who companion, yet other Doctor Who companions (Such as Katarina, Kamelion, and Dan Lewis) were merged into other articles despite similar arguments and backgrounds. Consensus for notability of a subject is very much on a case-by-case basis, and having articles of similar backgrounds does not instantly guarantee that the same argument applies to another subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I mentioned OTHERSTUFF, you hadn't mentioned the other deletion discussion. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few thoughts on the Rossi:
  1. While Rossi did survive an AfD, as per WP:OTHERSTUFF, "caution should be used..." because most do not receive wide participation -- and that could be said of Rossi. His AfD received little attention, with only 5 other people !vote. But moreover with an even split 3/3 keep versus merge -- the decision that there was consensus is somewhat questionable.
  2. Of the top four characters by number of appearances per IMDB (whereby Prentiss is 7th).[4] only half of them have an actual article, while two of them have redirects. Of those with redirects they still have over 100 more episodes each compares to Prentiss.
  3. And looking at the current List of Criminal Minds characters the top two listings here as well are simply redirects. Those redirects were previously articles as well that were merged and deleted per GNG in 2023.
  4. Interest in show and characters is falling significantly (WP:RECITISM), the page views for Criminal Minds alone has dropped off 50% and 70% for the characters of Reid, Prentiss, Jareau, Garcia and Rossi [5].
But all of that simply speaks to the dangers of introducing WP:WAX. It is a slippery slope to introduce the existence of other things (surviving AfD) as there are also other examples of other things were deleted with arguably more significance. This is really what the essay expresses, and instead the arguments should focus on why Prentiss (what the essay expresses as individual merit), not some of the common notability fallacies. TiggerJay (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many changes since the last AfD. There are many more secondary sources from established outlets (E! Online, TODAY.com, CNN, Yahoo), there has been more news coverage in relation to events on the series (faked death, gray hair, departures and returns, relationships, and changes in series structure). The article itself carries (and has the potential to carry much more) information that is valuable and useful to many readers, especially those who wish to learn about Emily Prentiss from Criminal Minds. Redirecting her character once again to the list of characters would result in an obnoxiously long description of her, and anything short of that would not do justice to the coverage, notability, and attention this character has received. DocZach (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I would agree that there have made "many changes" since the last AfD, and there have been more secondary sources added, that does not itself equate to the requirements of independently reliable sources which establishing notability. There is enough source to verify that this fictional character exists, and that most of what is presented in the article is verify that they did occur. You mention a character arc, but I don't seen any reliable sources (through independent research or those provided in the article) which go to any depth to talk about anything significant about a character arc. Instead most focus on "she use to be X and now she is Y" or trivial other mentions about why something has changed, or that she went from a reoccurring role to being a regular on the show due to "fan demand". Those are facts more about the actress and not the character who was basically beholden to the whims of real life, instead of the character imposing it on the real people. Those are great for the Brewster article. TiggerJay (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titus Andromedon

[edit]
Titus Andromedon (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)

I don't think this character passes WP:GNG. Toby2023 (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 4meter4 turned up some fantastic finds, and even a glance at the sources shows some good promise. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4. I am persuaded that sources exist. This article can be improved, and deletion is unnecessary. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nucky Thompson

[edit]
Nucky Thompson (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)

Unfortunately, as much as i love Boardwalk Empire, Nucky doesn't passes WP:GNG, all the sources are passing mentions of the show and some don't even talk about him. My WP:BEFORE didn't help either. I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar reasons.:

Jimmy Darmody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Margaret Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nelson Van Alden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eli Thompson (Boardwalk Empire) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mickey Doyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Richard Harrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gyp Rosetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Valentin Narcisse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Toby2023 (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close. I am finding WP:SIGCOV on several of these characters. It is going to be a headache to talk about them as a group. No prejudice in the nominator bringing them forward individually, but I strongly oppose a bundled nomination.4meter4 (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close - A cursory search is showing a pretty large difference in potential notability for the different characters in this bundle, making it impossible to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK. As stated by 4meter4 already, there should be no prejudice against subsequently nominating some of them individually, but the discussion for all of them as a bundled nomination is not going to work. Rorshacma (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close per Rorshacma. Even if it achieves the same outcome, this process is all wrong for this many different articles. I see enough early evidence that each article is a little different. By going one-at-a-time, we have a better chance of getting it right. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's absolutely no reason for this to be here. Each of these can be merged into List of Boardwalk Empire characters without needing to be here, and, in the process, any excess detail can be trimmed. Nothing about the nomination suggests that the delete button is helpful here--or, really, that it would even be policy based to delete any of this: If the characters of a notable franchise aren't themselves notable, merge them to a list of characters per WP:CSC point 2. You can't delete the redirects, because that would violate attribution per WP:CWW. Let's save AfD for things that might actually be deletable under at least some policy-based theory, please. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaylord Ravenal

[edit]
Gaylord Ravenal (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)

I have not been able to find significant sources that talk about the subject. Jinnllee90 (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 24. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 04:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily passes WP:SIGCOV. Much scholarship has been published on Ferber's novel and its characters, largely because of the importance of Kern and Hammerstein's musical Show Boat which is widely recognized as a landmark musical. There is significant coverage of the character in Kreuger, Miles (1977). Showboat: The Story of a Classic American Musical. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-502275-0., Block, Geoffrey (1997). Enchanted Evenings: The Broadway Musical from Show Boat to Sondheim. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-510791-8.,Decker, Todd (2013). Show Boat: Performing Race in an American Musical. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190250539., Blacklegs, Card Sharps, and Confidence Men: Nineteenth-Century Mississippi River Gambling Stories. LSU Press. 2010. ISBN 9780807137369. among a host of other books.4meter4 (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 4meter4. When you add these refs to the article, see if you can note the most important plot differences from the musical's script that affect Gaylord's character in the 3 film versions. For example, in 1951, a much shorter period of time has gone by at the end when Ravenal returns to Magnolia and his young daughter. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's little point in doing a Google book search and then claiming that any results represent significant coverage. Mention of a fictional character in plot summaries of an influential or popular book is not in itself SIGCOV. We don't have an article dedicated to Magnolia, who IS the central character in the book. Ravenal is not the central character or even "the leading male character" as the article claims. He PLAYS the male lead on the showboat, but is not the lead. He comes, he goes. He's not a good person. But he is not discussed at any great length in these books beyond plot summary, he is not more notable than the central character of the book and its adaptations and there is not, actually, SIGCOV about him at all. There's no point doing a merge, the information's already in the Showboat article. Likewise a redirect - the character is more than adequately covered in the showboat article. Notable. Good grief. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having spent over a week reading these books recently while rewriting the musical article, I can categorically say your assessment is inaccurate. There is indeed critical analysis of the character in these sources beyond plot summaries, and in particular discussion in how the character was fundamentally changed between Ferber's novel and the musical, and also altered further in successive film and radio adaptations. The coverage is substantial and not at all brief. It's obvious you haven't read the material. One of the weaknesses of the current character article is it does overstate the prominence of his role in the novel; although in the musical it is a more central role because the story was changed into a romance. The character article needs a lot of work, but it is a notable topic. FYI there is also coverage of Ravenal in books on Ferber, and cross comparisons between the men in her other novels in that literature. 4meter4 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters

[edit]
List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss 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)

Unfortunately, this is something i don't wanna do. I understand that Lucifer Morningstar (Hazbin Hotel), Vaggie, and Angel Dust (Hazbin Hotel) have all been AfD'ed before and this redirect page is really useful, but unfortunately, looking back on this, this fails WP:LIST and there is not much to say. If you wanna create a list of characters, it must discuss about the characters in groups, not standalone. I couldn't find any that discuss the characters in groups.

Again, this is something i do not wanna do, but i can't find any sources that discuss the characters in groups or anything useful, i don't know if a useful redirect target would be Hazbin Hotel#Voice cast or Helluva Boss#Voice cast or it should be deleted, whatever it is, it doesn't meet WP:LIST. Toby2023 (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss, as both of these shows are covered here. The characters seem to have a lot of fluff that can likely be trimmed down and fit into the respective main articles. I feel Vaggie and Lucifer's Receptions can also likely be trimmed down extensively and slotted somewhere into their show's, especially since many of the sources are sourced to trivial mentions, content farms, or lower-end sources. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per Pokelego999. The characters don't have WP:SIGCOV. This can even be split and merged into two articles, if editors agree. I support whichever target is logical, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss. This article worked well before the shows had released many episodes, as it simply was a lot smaller back then. But after the release of the first season of Hazbin Hotel, the article saw a lot of content addition that falls into the category of fancruft and general is unhelpful to anyone looking for a general understanding of the series. However, one should be aware before merging the articles that this article currently lists every single character in both series. Merging them is likely to lead to edit wars regarding which secondary characters are important enough to have information written about them. Something may need to be decided as to which secondary characters are relevant enough to still be included in the main pages for the shows. Blubewwy (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge The three deletion discussions mentioned above should not just summarily be overturned by deletion. So at the very least the sourced reception sections with a balanced amount of plot summary should be preserved, which is kind of an akwardly large amount of information to put into the series' articles. The reception sections on Vaggie and Lucifer Morningstar alone already are beyond the length of a stub, each. If push comes to shove, Vaggie could possibly be merged to Charlie Morningstar.
This paper contains a brief observation on the characters as a group. Longer treatments can be found in these web, articles. Daranios (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional briefer characterizations of the characters as a group can be found here and here. Not to mention the many more detailed articles by ScreenRant and Comic Book Resources. Daranios (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this and this web article are two more which talk about the characters as a group and are findable from the suggested target articles. So overall I feel that a WP:BEFORE search should be done with more effort than seems to have been the case here. Secondary sources discussing the items of a list as a group are the most common critereon for stand-alone lists, but they are not a "must". (WP:LISTN: "One accepted reason...".) Other considerations are outlined at WP:LISTCRITERIA. However I do feel that in this case, if we take the sources I have listed together we have enough discussion of the characters as a group to fullfill this requirement. And I believe the content can be better presented here in this list rather than in the main articles. Which does not mean the list as is cannot benefit from some trimming, but that's an editorial decision and therefore not relevant for the question of deletion. Daranios (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surly Squirrel

[edit]
Surly Squirrel (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)

All the sources are movie reviews and not about the character, this article shouldn't exist in the first place. Toby2023 (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Severide

[edit]
Kelly Severide (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 characters a lot of issues that are still aren't fixed, so this is suitable enough to AfD it. Toby2023 (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Francis

[edit]
Purple Francis (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)

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 13#Purple francis. Article is about a joke character, which was BLARed in 2021 because of a lack of notability. CycloneYoris talk! 09:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

disagree with the stated blar reasoning. seemed more like an editor not liking it, despite at least two others having agreed before that it did meet the gng
that aside, keep. for better or worse (definitely worse), purple francis does have those reliable sources on him. still no prejudice against draftifying or userifying, since its prose might be a little undercooked for mainspace, but i don't think it's anything that can't be done in around an hour and 9 minutes cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Left 4 Dead (franchise). This is a very small Stub primarily filled with a lot of information about Purple Francis's in-universe information. There is very little coverage showing Purple Francis's actual impact and popularity that can't be just be summarized in one sentence. It warrants a mention, but it's not necessary for this to have a separate article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also fair, to be honest cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Wily

[edit]
Dr. Wily (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 has been redirected because it relies heavily on primary sources and the nominator's WP:BEFORE found nothing but game reviews, but i am here to give this article a second chance, Wily is a pretty popular character, it has been a year and a half since it was redirected, so doing a WP:BEFORE should find some reliable sources as a keep, but if not, we can restore the merge and redirect. Toby2023 (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd advise an analysis of the article's sourcing as well as of any potential sourcing, given that we're in this venue now, and especially so since the nom does not seem to have done a BEFORE. I'll take a look later myself and see if I find anything, but the current Reception is very much a lot of random listicle rankings and such that don't really say much, so I doubt most of it can really be considered Wikipedia:SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My BEFORE wasn't very fruitful. I turned up two Destructoid sources- [19] This one is a merchandise announcement that briefly covers how Wily's groveling became iconic, but that's pretty minor and can be summed up in a sentence. [20] This one happens to cover Wily's actions, but after reading it, it becomes apparent it's just a very dramatically worded summary of Wily's actions throughout the Mega Man series.
A look through Books yielded nothing bar trivial mentions and official material, and Scholar yielded the same. [21][22] These two mention Wily, but I can't access them, so I have no idea to what degree their coverage of him is. If both of these turn out to have nothing, then there's nothing really else for this guy at all. If someone who has access can assess these sources, I'd appreciate it greatly. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the former accessible through this link? I've seen there very brief characterization as a "selfish scientist" with "aspirations of world domination", and a few sentences of plot summary there. Daranios (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Looks like they're one and the same, good find. It looks primarily to be about Mega Man the character and series, and less so Wily, who only gets mentioned a few times with very little substance. I doubt it'd be enough to help Wily. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Endorse I don't yet have an opinion on notability, but considering the article history, having an AFD discussion in lieu of a unilateral blank-and-redirect is reasonable. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect I really wish people would just give the BLAR process a chance; there's no indication of notability, nothing new has been presented to indicate notability, and instead if for some reason the character achieves notability later on, reviving it will be that much harder. Additionally it should be on the AfD nominator to do the before, not people responding to it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles I find uncontroversial to BLAR are something that is totally uncited or pure plot. If it even has a hint of citations, it should go to full AfD discussion. Many can interpret BLARs of fully cited articles as doing an end-run around an AfD, even if that is not intended. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fine personal standard, but there's no requirement for anyone to follow it. I've seen countless examples of articles that have citations but they're still nowhere near meeting the notability standards, and there was no reason to waste the community's time on them. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to List of Mega Man characters#Dr. Wily. Taking the secondary sources together, it is possible to write a full, non-stubby article, therefore notability is established. We already have some commentary now, and that can be further expanded by using the sources. The fact that some of the sources are in list form in my view is not relevant, as long as they are reliable and have something non-trivial to say. I think it would be possible to do some more summarizing, so that it would also fit as an extended section at the list where it was previously redirected. But even if that were the way to go, I think there is more to merge here rather than simply redirecting, e.g. Dr. Wily's persistence and longevity within the franchise is a recurring theme in secondary sources like the IGN article. Daranios (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources are you saying help the subject meet independent notability? Its not particularly clear to me after skimming the article or this conversation thus far. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Destructoid articles (at least that one) + "Wily has been noted as a popular character and villain, and has been compared to similar characters such as Doctor Eggman.[15] He placed thirty-ninth in GamePro's "47 Most Diabolical Video-Game Villains of All Time" article, noting him to be "[c]learly a standout from the overcrowded school of mad scientists".[16] Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition listed Dr. Wily as 27th in their list of top 50 Villains.[17] In a "Reader's Choice" edition of GameSpot's "Top Ten Video Game Villains" article, Wily placed fifth, and while noted as not receiving enough votes to place above Doctor Eggman on the list, the character came close.[18] Dr. Wily ranked sixth on IGN's Top 10 Video Game Characters who should die along with his nemesis, Dr. Light. IGN editor Colin Moriarty stated that while their rivalry may have been fascinating for over 20 years, they need to go so the core series may advance.[19] GamesRadar staff described Dr. Wily as one of the best villains in video games, stating that "Mad scientists are pretty standard fare, but Dr. Wily brings a certain flair to his evil schemes."[20] Computerworld named Wily as one of gaming's "baddest villains", praising his persistence despite his failure at the conclusion of each Mega Man game.[21] GameDaily named him one of their favorite older characters in video games and one of the "Top 25 Evil Masterminds of All Time", ranking him second on their list while stating "using good robots to do bad things is sheer genius."[22][23] They additionally cited his rivalry with Mega Man as one of the ten greatest in video games, describing it as one "still going strong to this day."[24] In a later article, they listed the "evil mastermind" as one of their top 25 video game archetypes, using Wily as an example.[25] IGN listed him as the 13th Best Video Game Villain, calling him one of the most "hopelessly persistent" video game villains.[26]" Daranios (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks like pretty shallow listicle content. It supports your merge stance - you could write a minor list entry at the character list article - but I'm not really seeing the sourcing to prove notability or a keep stance... Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To boot too Guinness and reader polls should not on the surface be considered reliable per se, as they are both drawing their results from anonymous internet users. It's no better than citing internet comments or reader reviews.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. There are some sources I found ([23], [24]), but even with that first one, it feels more like Mega Man 2 reception. It's not unworkable for a Wily article, but it's not a strong piece of foundation either. If ever Wily gets an article, it will be after some deep, deep research. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per my comments above. There's enough to write a small entry in the character list, but not enough to support a full-article. There's not enough significant coverage for its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Schwindt, Oriana (2016-07-21). "Paget Brewster Returns to 'Criminal Minds' for Multiple Episodes in Season 12". Variety. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  2. ^ Gonzalez, Sandra (2016-08-30). "'Criminal Minds': Paget Brewster back for good". CNN. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  3. ^ "Paget Brewster Is Returning to Criminal Minds (Yes, Again)". E! Online. 2016-02-10. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  4. ^ France, Lisa Respers (2016-07-22). "Paget Brewster returning to 'Criminal Minds'". CNN. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  5. ^ "Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Ending Explained: Does Emily Prentiss Survive?". IMDb. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  6. ^ Dumaraog, Ana (2024-05-29). "Prentiss' Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Story Nods Back To Her Past, Teases Showrunner". ScreenRant. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  7. ^ Dumaraog, Ana (2024-07-02). "Prentiss Is Hilariously High In Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Episode Clip". ScreenRant. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  8. ^ "Paget Brewster Got Nostalgic About Her 'Criminal Minds' Run Ahead of 'Evolution' Season 2". Yahoo Life. 2024-06-01. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  9. ^ Mondor, Brooke (2021-05-31). "The Prentiss Scene On Criminal Minds That Went Too Far". Looper. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  10. ^ Spencer, Samuel (2020-02-06). "'Criminal Minds' Season 15: Will Prentiss Break Up With Mendoza?". Newsweek. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  11. ^ "Criminal Minds' Paget Brewster Embraces Her Grays in New Photo". E! Online. 2022-08-09. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  12. ^ "'Criminal Minds' fan recap: Paget Brewster returns as Emily Prentiss". Yahoo Entertainment. 2016-03-31. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  13. ^ Mitovich, Matt Webb (2016-03-28). "Criminal Minds Boss: Prentiss' Visit Brings 'Laughs and Love' — 'The Timing Couldn't Have Been More Perfect'". TVLine. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  14. ^ "Criminal Minds: Top 8 Prentiss Moments". TVGuide.com. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  15. ^ Williamson, Matt (1992-02-23). "Game Gear Puts Pedal to the Metal with 'Sonic' and 'Space Harrier'". Rocky Mountain News. Denver, Colorado: John Temple.
  16. ^ Staff (2008-02-04). "The 47 Most Diabolical Video-Game Villains of All Time". PC World. Archived from the original on 2012-04-15. Retrieved 2008-09-16.
  17. ^ "Bowser voted top of 50 video game villains". Digital Spy. 24 January 2013.
  18. ^ Staff. "TenSpot Reader'S Choice: Top Ten Video Game Villains". GameSpot. Archived from the original on 2007-07-09. Retrieved 2008-12-31.
  19. ^ "Wednesday 10: Video Game Characters That Should Die". IGN. 18 February 2009. Archived from the original on 28 March 2012. Retrieved 7 August 2009.
  20. ^ "The best villains in video games | GamesRadar+". 10 February 2018.
  21. ^ Gagne, Ken (2007-06-01). "You can run, but you'll only die tired: Gaming's 'baddest' villains". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2008-04-23. Retrieved 2008-09-16.
  22. ^ Buffa, Chris. "Best Over the Hill Game Characters". GameDaily. AOL. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
  23. ^ Workman, Robert. "Top 25 Evil Masterminds of All Time". GameDaily. AOL. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
  24. ^ Workman, Robert. "Top 10 Greatest Video Game Rivalries". GameDaily. AOL. Retrieved 2008-12-26.
  25. ^ Kubba, Sinan. "Joystiq". Gamedaily.com. Retrieved 2013-05-24.
  26. ^ "Dr. Wily is number 13". IGN. Archived from the original on 2013-07-07. Retrieved 2013-05-24.

Yoshimitsu

[edit]
Yoshimitsu (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)

The reception section is a mess of listicles and "anything not nailed down" types of articles. While there can be some degree of commentary gleamed for Yoshimitsu, it's brief and often repetitive. Even checking sources I've used in the past for Soulcalibur characters doesn't offer much at all. There's just no meat on this bone that I can find. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Den of Geek one is the strongest source coupled with Jasper's commentary on the Tekken character ranking list. The main problem though is that the Game Rant and CGMag refs are echoes of some of the commentary from that one on the designs and could be summed up as "his appearance changes frequently", PushSquare is basically death battle commentary in this case, and The Gamer and 3DPrint refs are both about fan works (I checked to see if the designer on the latter had some notability that could help but no dice). I feel there may not be enough actually said for SIGCOV when the sources are lined up is my concern.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others. Very little SIGCOV and a very clear-cut case of not much notability existing for him. I'd redirect Yoshimitsu (Soulcalibur) and Yoshimitsu (Tekken) to their respective character lists, since he's a character of two different franchises, and redirect Yoshimitsu (No distinction) to the DAB page to be the primary topic, per Zx. Both lists just redirect to his article, so content will need to be merged to them for the information to be retained. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Kazama16's sources. Den of Geek (both of them) and CGmagonline are the strongest sources. Those two, plus GamesRadar and Bloody Disgusting and Game Rant, which all discuss his design and unorthodox fighting style, compared to other fighting game characters, may also be of some help. The more trivial sources can definitely be trimmed down, but overall, I feel this isn't redirect-worthy. I can see this being a Voldo type of situation, where most of the notability comes from his "freakish" design and unorthodox fighting style. MoonJet (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isolated, the Bloody Disgusting source would be good...but it's just saying the same thing as the CMag and previous Game Rant sources. Much like there's only so many times you can say "this character is sexy" in an article, "this character is freaky" starts to get repetitive fast.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

[edit]

no articles proposed for deletion at this time

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Fictional_elements&oldid=1259729505"