Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Science fiction or fantasy. 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|Science fiction and fantasy|~~~~}} 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 Science fiction or fantasy. 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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction and fantasy/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Related deletion sorting

Science fiction and fantasy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu mythological and devotional cinema

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

WP:POVFUNNEL: That era also had films from other religions, as well as folklores. WP:CONTENTFORK as it can be incorporated in Cinema of India, also forks the genre Mythological film / Fantasy film. Hardly satisfies WP:GNG. Fight Island (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Religion, and India. Fight Island (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge As there seems to be a book about the subject, it seems likely that this can support a stand-alone article. I don't see the WP:POVFUNNEL argument, as the article does not claim that it is about an era of film, but rather a significant topical sub-section of the era before 1923 and beyond. In its current form we only have stub, though, so I have no problem if the majority prefers to merge the current content to a suitable broader topic and only split it out again in case someone adds enough content. Daranios (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daranios, there's no "book about the subject", there's mention in pages 303–305. Currently, parent article Cinema of India does not have a section dedicated to it or mention of it in History section. Standalone sub-topic article is odd.--2409:4073:118:6B79:20EB:9C1C:FC4C:251F (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The cited review of Deities & Devotees suggests that that book is at least to a large part about the subject. Or did I get that wrong? The same review also calls out Filming the Gods by Rachel Dwyer and the Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema as further sources on the topic. Daranios (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I agree that if this is kept there should be a corresponding sub-section added to Cinema of India, presumably at "Genres and styles". But the fact that there is not such section yet should not be a reason to delete this article. Daranios (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: And perhaps rename to either Hindu mythological cinema or Puranic cinema, as many non-secular religious zealots treat these films as fact-based. Also because devotional films are largely different, e.g.: Palayathu Amman is not a mythological as it is set in present day, but devotion to a god plays a prominent role in the story. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I vote to delete. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: We don't normally create separate articles for subgenres, such as Arabian mythological film, Norse mythological film, Slavic mythological film, African mythological film, Celtic mythological film, Persian mythological film etc. It's all mythology. Even mythological film don't have a separate article. But we have Norse mythology in popular culture, may be Hindu mythology in popular culture is a broader and better option. Fight Island (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fight Island: I think there are two differences between our article and your examples. On the one hand I imagine that there are more Hindu mythological films than for the other mythologies. On the other, the one cinema is rooted in a major living religion, which is not the case for the others. Whatever we as authors may think of these mythologies, in the one case scholars of religion can and have analyzed the reactions of the believers to the films, in the other cases not (so much). A closer comparison would be between Hindu devotional cinema and Christian cinema, which does have an article, more or less. More importantly, I think we don't normally make a program beforehand what subarticles we create or don't create. Rather, it depends if there are secondary sources, especially scholarly ones, which can support an encyclopedic article or not. That's what WP:GNG is all about, and that should be the critereon here, too - while still respecting WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:NPOV, of course. If we have enough secondary material, let's have a Hindu mythological cinema article. If we have enough for a Norse mythological film, let's have that one, too. One does not depend on the existence of the other, that would be a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS kind of argument. Daranios (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content forking is content forking. As already told, even mythological film has no separate article. GNG is not a guarantee for inclusion, not to mention it hardly satisfies here, as GNG requires "significant coverage" in "independent sources" specifically discussing "Hindu mythological film" as an independent genre as the book claims (not the broader Indian mythological film). I see only two sources on the article and can't find any on the web. Contrary to what you accused, other stuff does not exists here.--Fight Island (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fight Island: "Content forking is content forking." Sure, so why are we leading a deletion discussion here, not a merge discussion? You are arguing mostly based on the current state of the article. That, however, is not the decisive factor according to the notability guideline. The question is are there enough secondary sources so that we could write a reasonable encyclopedia article on our specific topic here, or only enough to support a paragraph in a larger article. This should have been determined by a WP:BEFORE search preceding a nomination for deletion. So did you check out the three books I've mentioned, and how substantial the content of the three pages from Explorations in New Cinema History actually is?

As for "other stuff does not exists here", that essay says we should avoid the argument "We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this.", which seems to be pretty much what you are saying with reference to mythological films in general. The existence of this article in no way hinders the creation of such a parent article. Daranios (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: due to WP:POVFUNNEL. This is a subtopic best covered in a larger article as suggested by the nominator. Venkat TL (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Hinduism. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is WP:POVFUNNEL, and lacks sources desperately. It can be merged with Cinema of India, but carefully since Indian cinema was nowhere and never divided per ethnicity, there is no theory of cinema that makes such distinction in any significant manner. Redirect could be left, but I would prefer not as it could potentially feed into more ethno-nationalism.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Santasa99, thank you for saying that. Although I have already !voted, so I am making this additional note that I do not suggest keeping the redirect due to above reason. I stand with my delete opinion. Venkat TL (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have added content about both genres (Hindu mythological and devotional) to List of genres, this article may be deleted. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792 This is not the right way to !Vote. see Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Recommendations_and_outcomes. You did not strike out your previous Keep !vote comment or any other comment. And why are you indenting as if you are responding to my comment? Venkat TL (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to strike it out, but I thought one cannot edit their own comments. Now I'll do it. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792 ok. I still did not understand why you decided to indent your comment as a reply to @Santasa99 and my comment. It is unrelated. Please strike it and make a fresh comment below with one bullet point as indentation. The present comment is confusing as it is not related to the 2 comments before yours. Venkat TL (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing as Delete because after 2, not 3, relists, there is no one advocating to Keep this article. Ordinarily, I'd close as Soft Delete but that is not possible here so Delete it is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wadanohara and the Great Blue Sea

AfDs for this article:

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

Sadly, this game from Deep-Sea Prisoner (the same person who made Mogeko Castle) does not meet WP:GNG. I have seen nothing from the reliable sources search engine that provides coverage or reviews. Oddly enough, the manga adaptation has a bit more coverage than the game itself (small blurbs from Crunchyroll, Anime News Network), but I don't think that will make the manga notable as well. Sparkl^talk 02:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Video games, and Anime and manga. Sparkl^talk 02:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Close No Response in 3 relists, No Consensus.
PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I too am not finding anything useful. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nila (character)

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

Fictional character with just one film appearance (2.0 (film)). Does not meet WP:GNG as it lacks independent coverage in reliable sources including enough real-world/out-of-universe perspective. Most of the content is sourced from interviews/primary sources which do not establish notability.

Stand-alone article is not warranted in any case per WP:NOPAGE as it can be covered in the film article. Blazin777 (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Blazin777:, I understand your point that only one film of the character made you feel that the it is not suitable of having a Wikipedia page. But the fact is it is part of a film series and it may significantly have a future apperance in the project as part of the film series/cinematic universe. Also may I know why the Appearance part of the song is removed from the page (since that added more importantance to the character in connection with the protagonist)

Please provide your view and rationale.

Thank you. 456legend(talk) 15:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough to show the character is notable. Need to have secondary sources that are focused on the character, not the people playing that character. Has only appeared in one film. Not enough to show independent notability. Ravensfire (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire: okay fine sir. I understood the reason. Delete it. I have no points to put in further. Thank you

Delete I would have usually advocated a redirect but Nila is too common of a character name for this. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fictional character that has only appeared in a single film, and has no sources that would indicate that she is notable enough to warrant an individual article. As mentioned above, Nila is too common of a name for multiple fictional characters for a Redirect to be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass real world notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: The Last of the Jedi

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

See maintenance tags. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jude Watson, should probably still have a bit of a blurb but it doesn't appear to be notable enough for a stand-alone page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Especially considering each book has its own individual article. Could probably merge a lot of them or just straight redirect depending on quality of sourcing. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Another Cringy Username: The book titles in the Jude Watson article all redirect here, so it does not seem to be the case that "each book has its own individual article". Or did I miss them? Daranios (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope! A lot of series have individual articles for each book, so I just saw the live links and assumed. Thank you for the correction! Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - without stating any preference, I am compelled to say that after going to article to check those tags, I was drawn into reading it (article) in its entirety - as someone who didn't know about the work, I found it interesting.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jude Watson or keep: None of the tags as such are a reason for deletion, but rather the indicated problems should be fixed through editing. The main question is if there are secondary sources which provide enough information so they can be fixed, as a proper WP:BEFORE search would show, which should be done prior to the nomination. In our case, such a search should include the individual books, as they are put together here in a summary article on the series in accordance with WP:ATD-M. This and this article have some relevant content. Popular Series Fiction for Middle School and Teen Readers is indicated by Google books to have content, but I don't have access. Is there more? Daranios (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think the series is just about notable enough per WP:NBOOKS and per Thebiguglyalien, WP:DINC. Though the article does need significant help because it does seem to be little more than plot summaries at present. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs some cleanup and additional information, not deletion. TITANOSAURUS 05:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. Merge as an alternative to deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rain (Mortal Kombat)

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

Like Cyrax, Sektor and Skarlet, no longer meets WP:GNG standards. Rain has been playable in only four games since his addition as a Prince-inspired joke character nearly three decades ago (his lone claim to fame). No viable third-party coverage and reception consists of listicles and unreliable sources. Should be merged/redirected to the list of MK characters. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the page. Explain the problem more deeply. This is a good article, like other Mortal Kombat Articles, they all need to stay. How can I help? What changes should I make? Where should the article change? Thank you 2601:5C7:4100:3600:519:5331:6020:59B5 (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC) — 2601:5C7:4100:3600:519:5331:6020:59B5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. Skynxnex (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the relevant list of fictional characters. Andre🚐 23:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand. I ask any Administrator who sees this discussion for help, but to NOT delete the article. It is important, just as the rest. I Oppose the deletion of this article. Oppose/Keep 2601:5C7:4100:3600:3CB5:B0FD:516C:D555 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC) — 2601:5C7:4100:3600:3CB5:B0FD:516C:D555 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect Slapping together a bunch of trivial coverage does not an article make, just padding to give the illusion of notability. The article does not indicate the character was important to non-fans. See also WP:WPINWA. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of articles like that. Why prey on this one? 2601:5C7:4100:3600:61A2:2109:1849:6506 (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)— 2601:5C7:4100:3600:61A2:2109:1849:6506 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is the third single-purpose account disrupting this discussion and most likely the same user, as their writing styles are the same. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 15:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP address can inadvertently be swapped so I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume they are not trying to appear like multiple people on purpose. That said, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for the answer to that question. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that’s good to know. Thanks. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate that, I am not trying to disrupt anyone, I am a constructive editor here on Wikipedia.

I oppose this articles deletion. The fact that it is nominated for deletion is bullshit. There is nothing wrong with the

Article, please explain the problem to me in full, in-depth detail, and I will report it to Wikipedia and Top Admins and solve the problem; Let's not rock the boat for anyone, shall we? 2601:5C7:4100:3600:4D4:D5A6:4141:9E32 (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain WP:CIVIL, insults will not help your case at all. It was already explained why the article is problematic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm But I wouldn't mind seeing the Magic of Top Admins and how they'd rescue this article :) Then we can watch Flying Pigs in Snowing Hell feature next. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List_of_Mortal_Kombat_characters. Fails WP:GNG. First paragraph of the reception is the usual listing of listcruft and rankings mentioning him, with the usual laughable (sorry, can't mince the words here) stuff like "ranked Rain 36th in his 2015 rating of the 64 series characters" stuff that pretty much says "he is not important, even in-universe". The second paragraph is no better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per Piotrus above. That's generally the sort of examination I give these sorts of articles, and it's spot on. Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'm guilty of having padded out the article with such content seven years ago, because back then that was the standard for VG character articles. But of course Wikipedia is constantly evolving as are its notability guidelines, not to mention Rain has still had no more than a minimal presence in the games since then. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No insults or tensions wanted, I apologize if I offended anyone. I make my position clear, I oppose the deletion of this article.

Just edit out the problems would be my suggestion. I want to help. 2601:5C7:4100:3600:5CD8:E344:52B1:378F (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not rock the boat, I suggest everyone should list the problems with the Article, and then edit them out instead of deleting it entirely; This will only cause trouble due to the fact of there being no more information on this character. Instead of deletion, fix the problems and keep the article alive so it won't be lost to anyone who looks for him. 2601:5C7:4100:3600:E11A:66EF:A136:CA45 (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The core problem is that there aren't enough third party reliable sources that cover the subject in significant detail, and if that can't be addressed here, then there's no hope for the article. Sergecross73 msg me 23:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are familiar with the MK wiki, I assume? There is a ton of information about all the characters there. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Like Nightwolf, Rain has received a review and other critical opinions and analyses based on his DLC appearances. We have one from Comicbook.com, Shacknews, GamesRadar, IGN and Bleeding Cool. This also shows he's been reviewed by Fearnet, but the page itself appears to have not been archived. He also has some Valnet sources covering him, but it appears that they are not longer accepted for establishing notability, a decision that I do not agree with, but yeah. Cyrax and Sektor had no such sources (at least from what I could find), fair enough, but Rain does. MoonJet (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lordy, here we go again with somehow thinking a trailer press-released by NRS announcing a DLC automatically establishes character notability because a few gaming sites pick it up. It does not. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spamming random trivial sources is a waste of people's time and energy, please be aware that competence of evaluating sources is needed in editing Wikipedia. Run of the mill announcements are trivial, full stop. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys checked the sources, they do more than merely announce Rain as DLC. If what you were saying was true, I would had been listing more here. I mean, if you still think this isn't enough, that's fine, but these are not mere announcements. MoonJet (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters per Piotrus and Zxcvbnm. The refs provided in the article are unreliable refs, trivial overviews from RS, or questionable listicles. I appreciate MoonJet's hardworking efforts in finding refs, and while I disagreed previously with the editor, Moonjet's arguments could be reasonable to other editors. Therefore, thanks for working to save the article and building the consensus. However, I'm afraid I have to disagree with the refs meeting SIGCOV. This is marked as a trailer, thus a routine announcement. A copy-and-paste error from the website caused each of the first two paragraphs to be duplicated. So there are just two paragraphs- the content's first paragraph is a routine overview of the character, followed by a three-sentence casual critical evaluation. I'm not at all convinced that this short paragraph could be considered SIGCOV. Further, the overview from IGN is decent; however, it is, by and large, a gameplay overview. Also, for Comic Book- I should comment that per WP:VG/RS it has inconclusive reliability. And this ref is a trailer, routine gameplay info, and trivial overview. Similarly, this is also routine info on this trailer. Consider WP:GNG's additional note: Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources- to me, these examples all fall under announcement columns or minor news stories. However, many thanks for MoonJet's alternative opinion and overview, which shows a reasonable disagreement in the definition of "trivial" and "announcement columns". VickKiang (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters#Rain, unlike Nightwolf, who had significant coverage that was actually about the character, the only references here are just video game sites covering the launch of a DLC, there is no actual significant coverage of the character themselves in that coverage, just the DLC they came in. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am very familiar with Mortal Kombat. There is always hope for the article, we could add more references like you want and merge it to the list then. 2601:5C7:4100:3600:7CC1:3574:DFFC:3096 (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do better than WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES? VickKiang (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge an an WP:ATD. The reception is iffy and I understand why editors think it is not significant. This could still be used to improve the character write-up at the main list. Archrogue (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources posted by MoonJet are sufficient to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters per nominator et al. Discounting the obvious loads of non-reliable source currently in the article, the remainder of the coverage, including that brought up in this AFD is either very trivial, or simple routine coverage of announcements and trailers. None of it is sufficient to show that the character is notable enough to have his own article independent of the main article on the franchise characters. Rorshacma (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
so will it be merged? is that how we save the article? 2601:5C7:4100:3600:F978:8FFD:64EA:B08E (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on your definition of "save". There had always been a List of Mortal Kombat characters and that is in no danger of being removed. As a group, the franchise's characters are incontrovertibly notable. It's when you get down to individual characters being notable enough for their own pages is where the trouble lies. That is fine on FANDOM but not on Wikipedia per its policies on notability. Nominating these pages for deletion does not necessarily mean all trace of them should be removed from Wikipedia. AfD is often used as a venue for merge discussions when the article is clearly not notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Nome King. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nome Kingdom

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

There isn't meaningful coverage in reliable third-party sources to build an encyclopedic article, as per WP:GNG. A review of the sources finds either trivial mentions or material that can only support a plot summary, which are WP:NOT sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Jontesta (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nome King - Non-notable fictional location, without much in the way of reliable sources that discuss it outside of plot summaries. The article on its ruler (though probably needing some cleanup itself) appears to be in better shape as far as notability goes, so a redirect there would make sense. That single sentence in the "Reception" section could probably be moved over, but the rest of the article, which is pure overly detailed plot summary, should not be. Rorshacma (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other people's plot summaries are transformative, and hence RS. Jontesta and Rorshacma are confusing that with our own WAF and NOT guidelines, which state that we shouldn't write only plot summaries. The sourcing already in the article does appear to meet GNG, once we apply RS guidelines correctly. Merging the king and kingdom articles wouldn't be a terrible thing, but the threshold for an independent article appears to be met and so any such editorial decision should not be mandated by AfD, but rather discussed on the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @Jclemens:. He is right about the above. If the page got merged somewhere, most of the known Nomes would have to have their bios transferred to the different List of Oz characters pages. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorschacma. This needs real world, third party coverage in order to meet the WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. No, it doesn't stop being a plot summary when some details are repeated in other sources, and there is already WP:DUE weight on the plot details at other articles. I am neutral on the redirect target. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nome King, plot summaries are most certainly not SIGCOV, since an article based on them would fail WP:NOTPLOT. No SIGCOV was available from a search of Google Scholar. If these 'names of individual nomes' do not have any article where they would be due weight then they should simply not be mentioned on Wikipedia. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that were true, wouldn't it be written down somewhere? I've looked; I can't find it. Can you? I stand by my statement. Further, if plot summaries establish notability sufficient for an article, then they aren't the only sources upon which we can rely to draft an article--trivial mentions that would not count for notability often verify some interesting facts. Jclemens (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nome King. Those are closely related and we don't need two articles here. Outside of a single sentence of analysis, there's nothing really useful here outside a plot summary - all of this can survive happily in a section at Nome King. I'd recomend keeping the categories with a redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nome King for an WP:ATD. This article covers a lot of the same material as the main character article and could be WP:PRESERVEd to make that one better. Archrogue (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nome King as a viable ATD perPiotrus . FOARP (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nome King. The Nome Kingdom article feels like an unnecessary fork, and two of the references are of the Oz books themselves (WP:GNG). — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator I can consent to a merge, even still believing in deletion. Surprised to see this still open as there's near unanimity supporting a merge let alone full unanimity accepting a merge. Jontesta (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jontesta, Keep, Redirect and Merge might seem similar to an editor who is arguing for Deletion but they are three different outcomes to a closer and different editors argued for each of these options. I just happened to be looking at this page soon after you've made a remark as the AFD nominator. I expect the discussion will be closed fairly soon now that you have changed your opinion. But many closers just look over the daily AFD log once a day and there is only about half oa dozen of us who close deletion discussions while there are hundreds of AFDs so it might take a while before a closer looks over this who sees a consensus emerging. It's not like this is our day job! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't meant to discredit anyone's hard work. Just noting that every commenter has mentioned merge/redirect as an acceptable WP:ATD, with the only possible exception of my nomination. So I hope my most recent comment can make it clear that I can accept a compromise. Jontesta (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nome King per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Scorpion (disambiguation)#Comics. Numerically, this is 8 for keeping versus 10 for deleting/redirecting, but of the 8 at least one makes it clear they wish to keep this as an index, rather than a content page, and a couple of other !votes are ambiguous. I read the first of these as at least partially supporting redirecting, as there isn't an obvious basis in policy for preferring multiple DAB pages over a single one. Furthermore, the concerns (directly stated or implied) about this not being a coherent topic for a standalone page haven't really been rebutted, and the two clearly notable characters here have standalone pages; I'm not seeing a clearly stated argument for why a standalone content page is necessary over and above those two. As such I find the arguments to "keep" somewhat weaker, and this tips consensus toward redirecting. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion (Marvel Comics)

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

One of those weirdly overgrown disambis/lists ("The Scorpion is the name of multiple characters in Marvel Comics"). The problem, as usual, is that none of those multiple characters appear notable. References are short mentions or plot summaries or straight-up links to comic books. Perhaps redirect to Mac Gargan (article claims he is the best known of those characters)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. This was established as a set index article to list other characters who are named Scorpion....especially the version seen in the Ultimate Spider-Man TV series that had no mentioning of him being Mac Gargan and the one of Spider-Man's clones from the Ultimate Marvel version of the "Clone Saga". Otherwise, merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: S in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE while transferring Scorpia's information to her section there since a previous AFD about Scorpia had her redirected to this page in the first place. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this is supposed to be a disambiguation, it needs to be pruned to a few bullet points lists. It has mutated way beyond what a disambig should ever be. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this could be salvaged, with severe pruning. Listing these characters on the Scorpion (disambiguation) page doesn't make sense, and neither does tossing them all into a List of Marvel characters where a reader would have a harder time locating the one they want to learn about. The fictional content should all be reduced, the "other versions" should just be mixed in with the 616 versions, since these are all "other" versions of the Scorpion, and the "in other media" should be almost entirely scrapped as a fork from Mac Gargan, with the exception of the non-Mac Gargan Scorpion from the Spider-Verse film. I'd be happy to make these edits, but I don't want to waste the effort if others feel it would still merit deletion. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- While some of the Spider-Man clones from the Ultimate Marvel version of the "Clone Saga" have their own pages, how would you recommend handling the clone that became Scorpion since that version predated Maximus Gargan? Kron Stone already redirects to the List of Marvel Comics characters: S page as a version of him was also 2099's version of Venom. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would list them all alphabetically and include their creators and first appearance under their section. The clone would be listed under "Peter Parker (clone)." Argento Surfer (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above.★Trekker (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the disambiguation page Scorpion (disambiguation)#Comics, as non-notable on its own but a valid disambiguation for multiple Marvel characters. We just don't need an entire article summarizing them, that fails GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that only 2 of the characters are currently mentioned at your proposed target. Are you suggesting the others aren't worth including anywhere? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  They could be added there if they'd be mentione somewhere else where we could pipe a redirect, like the usual lists of Mervel Comic characters, so no loss for the search engine. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to disambiguation per Zxcvbnm. Agree that this is WP:OR about many different characters who happen to share the same name. There is already a disambiguation page for this where people can read much better articles about the individual characters. Would also support redirecting to the most notable of those characters. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Argento Surfer. BOZ (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scorpion (disambiguation)#Comics, it's not as if that particular page is overflowing with so many names it needs to be split, if there is stuff in this mess that merits a mention there it can be merged from the article history. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, divided between those advocating Keep and those who want a Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per nom. The disambiguation page allows people to navigate to better constructed articles. Cobbling together several different topics is WP:OR and incompatible with a reliable Wikipedia article. Jontesta (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability exists. Though the option to redirect can be still entertained on talk page. CharlesWain (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mac Gargan for consensus. Any expansion can continue there as these are really the same character, but that article needs some clean-up too. Archrogue (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Nothing shows that the grouping or minor members of the grouping establish notability. This provides no particular utility over a more succinct, normal disambig. TTN (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scorpion (disambiguation)#Comics - As there are two distinct versions that currently have their own articles, this would be the proper target for the Redirect. If any of the other characters mentioned here are deemed notable enough for a mention, they can be added as a note to that disambiguation, but I honestly don't believe any of them to be. Rorshacma (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you prefer that the version of Scorpion that is a clone of Peter Parker from Ultimate Marvel have it's information be transferred to List of Marvel Comics characters: S as @Argento Surfer: has proposed. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, still divided among editors whether to Keep or Redirect this article (and two different redirect targets have support).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with redirecting to Scorpion (disambiguation)#Comics. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Argento Surfer TITANOSAURUS 05:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Argento Surfer. Dark knight 2149 14:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scorpion (disambiguation)#Comics. Per Rorshacma. Elbatli (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scorpion (disambiguation)#Comics. The content and topic fail WP:NOTPLOT, and the "keep" opinions fail to establish the topic's notability throuch substantial coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 09:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect, merge) Just media appearances and plot information, no WP:GNG source in sight, no indication of real-world significance. Avilich (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.