Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Fictional elements. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Fictional elements|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Fictional elements. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

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

Related deletion sorting

Fictional elements

Josephine Balsamo

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Possible merge/redirect to Arsene Lupin or Maurice Leblanc, but not sure which. All information is unsourced too, so I am not sure it would be a valuable merge. Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Scholar finds this book about Hayao Miyazaki's earlier works, which included one film adaptation of Lupin. I don't see an obvious way to access that work and see whether substantial coverage of this character might be present. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like there is a viewable preview of that book here. The coverage of the character in it is extremely minimal - basically mentioning her when describing the plot of the original story that The Castle of Cagliostro was loosely adapted from. Rorshacma (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for confirming that. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gnasher Shotgun

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

I feel a huge problem here is that there's no indication of this thing having any impact or importance outside of its base series or any enduring legacy of said concept. A good paragraph devoted to it is basically gameplay tweaks that mean nothing to anyone that hasn't played Gears, and doesn't provide any reasonable grounds to be a standalone article. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and WP:MERGEREASON. Better covered in the context of its respective game(s), in a much more efficient, condensed manner. Current article is bloated and drawn out to an insane degree. It would be very easy to cover most in a much more focused paragraph that didn't branch out into these tangents. Sergecross73 msg me 18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gears of War: per nom and I don't see a problem of WP:WEIGHT by doing that, since this article is significantly smaller than the main one. I see no reason for this to be a standalone article. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Eurogamer article here is quite impressive, unfortunately that appears to be the only major coverage for the gun, with the other articles being announcements of balance patches or minor coverage. I likely wouldn't have created this article if I had only these sources available so I will have to agree it fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Even with some reception, it provides more coverage and context if we include this as part of the overall reception of the game and series. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex (Supergirl)

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

Only one entry, Alex Danvers, has a standalone article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Disambiguations, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dab not needed per WP:ONEOTHER. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Alex Danvers. It's hard to add a disambig hatnote to a table (list of episodes, as the other meaning is an tv show episode). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are clearly two topics that could be this entry. Having this lead to a disambiguation page prevents accidental links from happening as bots notify users when adding these. There is zero upsides to deleting or redirecting this. Gonnym (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not a case of WP:ONEOTHER as there is no clear main topic. Broc (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as there is as the episodes title is clearly referencing the character. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two topics. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Disambiguation page only links to one article, the other is just an article where the second subject is mentioned. —Mjks28 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The standalone article should be primary, with a hatnote being used to direct readers to the other Alex, who is only mentioned in the article body. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Danvers and add hatnote to season page per WP:TWODABS/WP:SIMILAR/WP:ONEOTHER. Primary topic with only one other topic that isn't stand-alone article-worthy. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Danvers. I've added coverage of the first topic (the episode "Alex") to the second topic (Alex Danvers).[1] There is a redirect (Alex (Supergirl episode)) that could be used for a hatnote on Alex Danvers#Season 2. I wasn't sure if it was okay to do a see also for a redirect, but it makes sense here. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Danvers. The article now has information about the episode "Alex." This two-item disambiguation page serves no useful purpose. If not redirect, then simply delete. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evil-Lyn

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

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 14:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 14:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be enough sourcing, and the nomination statement doesn't engage with what there is. There are multiple CBR references, but there appear to be enough RS to meet GNG, and the burden of BEFORE is on the nominator to show how what's already in the article does not. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this just me; but its only a 2 low quality situational Valnet sources [2] [3] in the article + this source from before and for me it isn't enough yet for GNG, due to the source quality. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 20:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:VALNET, which is also cited at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Valnet sources do not contribute to notability in discussions such as these. As all of these are VALNET, there is no notability displayed right now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no less than five non-Valnet online sources and one magazine source listed. The above does not constitute a source analysis. Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-The Los Angeles Times source is merely a one sentence mention of Linda Gary voicing her. Same deal for the Polygon source, except with a different VA.

-The San Francisco Chronicle source is a plot summary overview of her character

-The MTV Link is broken, so I cannot view it. I cannot view the SFX sources either.

-The HashtagTV source doesn't seem to even mention her? The source also doesn't seem reliable, and even then is only verifying that she'll appear in an upcoming production.

There's not even commentary or dev info here- at best there's two sources verifying VAs, which is not enough to pass the GNG bar. Nom seems to have done a BEFORE, and a brief BEFORE didn't yield much for me, either. Do note if I've missed anything, but this seems to be a rather minor character with very little additional sourcing to back up any substance. Ref count is not equal to notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the MTV link so it works. https://www.mtv.com/news/jat6pt/masters-of-the-universe-classics-faceless-one-review Each to search for the title of something and the name of the source to find it. Dream Focus 09:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but MTV link is broken again; all links to mtv.com archives seem intentionally broken, but wayback may have a copy of it. Regardless, the SFX source has still not been dealt with. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. I don't have the time to go through and search for sources myself to form an opinion on notability, but this is the obvious WP:Alternative to deletion which preserves the article in the history for possible future use and I am pretty sure something from here can improve the corresponding section at the target. Daranios (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is definitely in a pretty bad state, but Evil-Lyn is one of the most significant characters in the franchise. Given the presence of MOTU: Revelation, a couple of sources do exist pertaining to Lena Headey's portrayal of the character; interviews and reviews. From some research I've done, although critics from the 1980s don't seem to bring up Meg Foster often when discussing the live-action film, retrospective reviews do somewhat often single her out for praise. The article itself may not show it, but sources and coverage of Evil-Lyn do exist.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I don't know what I should respond to this. This looks like WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument somehow. Interview sources are primary and does not help GNG; same with Valnet sources. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 00:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, interviews count as primary. Additionally, could you please cite some of these sources you're referring to? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews may count as primary, but depending on the other/surrounding writeup may well count as independent RSes contributing to notability. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claims of @Jclemens: and @PanagiotisZois:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters as stated by user:Daranios. Significant coverage only comes from CBR, a questionable source according to WP:VALNET, and the wikis for He-Man MOTU, but these are tertiary sources that either do not cite references or just makes circular references to articles within that wiki. Not notable for a separate article at this time.Prof.PMarini (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaper/Mechanist universe

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

Unsourced and WP:OR. Little coverage of locations are found, therefore failing WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced. The content is all from Schismatrix Plus. Notability may still be an issue. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first and third entries in a default Google Scholar search are non-trivial academic works covering the fictional universe: a regrettable BEFORE failure. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens Uh-huh. And how is this not a fork of the notable novel Schismatrix? The sources you good are very good - for discussing the novel. No need to fork the plot into a subarticle. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Jclemens' sources. Toughpigs (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bruce Sterling per WP:ATD. While potentially notable, it requires a full rewrite and is not salvageable as-is. It appears to be entirely plot. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm Better redirect target is Schismatrix... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Schismatrix - It seems like most of the content of the article in regards to the fictional elements is already covered on the main book's article. Additionally, it looks like the the book's article already also covers the "Schismatrix Plus" reprint, which collected the entirety of the series, including the five short stories that led up to it. It looks like the only thing really missing at that article is the names of those five short stories, so a light Merge to add that information is probably needed. But, as it stands, this article is kind of duplicative to the information found at the book's title, and its very likely that someone searching for information on the series would be searching using the book's name, not "Shaper/Mechanist Universe". Rorshacma (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I've been tossing up between keep and redirect, and I've decided on keep, if more secondary sources, such as reviews, can be added to make the article less WP:OR. This article, and all articles in general, should be written up as information sourced from many citations, not just from the book itself. If said new secondary sources can't or haven't been added, then I will argue for redirect, or delete. —Mjks28 (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjks28 Just wanted to ping you regarding what I myself missed when I commented here the first time - that we already have an article on Schismatrix. The novel is notable, but its universe? Doubtful. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the universe's notability is questionable, but as I do not know anything about Bruce Sterling, or his works, I cannot say whether or not it is influential to many people. Because of this, I just look at the attributes of the article, such as the lack of sources and overall feeling of plot summary. I am leaning more towards redirect for this article, as the universe seems to only exist in one novel and five short stories, and could easily just be a section in the Schismatrix article. That being said, if this universe is considered notable, and more secondary citations are added, then I think the article should be kept. Mjks28 (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, since the article is a pure plot summary, but I'd be happy to revise my vote to keep IF anyone actually improves the article during this AfD (feel free to ping me). And of course no prejudice to this being restored from redirect into an article if such an improvement is done at a later date. That said, per my comment above, I don't see how the sources found justify the existence of this article separately from Schismatrix. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per nomination.

Not only is this WP:JUSTAVOTE, it also makes no sense considering the nomination is to delete this. Rorshacma (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mjks28. This doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV even with some of the suggested sources. As an WP:ATD, this can be a section in the Schismatrix article. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labingi

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

Fails WP:GNG seems like an list disambiguation. Both articles link to each other in the lead. Could possible be redirected to Westron language? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Fictional elements, and Science fiction and fantasy. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to be real, but so trivial as to not merit a mention in Bilbo's article as it stands now. Is there more context to these supposed names that would fill out a stub, or another article that explains the context here? Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Disambiguations. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly real and readily sourced, and a reminder that we should certainly make more of Westron names, in fact the whole language, throughout the WikiProject. The prime concern across the project has been notability, given that there was a large legacy of what seemed to be fan-created articles with (at best) primary sourcing. Now that that's been fixed, looking at the development of names and of characters, all the legendarium side of things, is an obvious next step: i.e. we should add the "Labingi" element to many articles. I'd hope it'd go without saying that you can't decide notability by looking at Wikipedia's gaps, but perhaps that's worth repeating here. Tolkien devoted enormous effort to the names in multiple languages, complete with Pseudotranslation from Westron to English; scholars are starting to catch up with these legendarium (Silmarillion without italics) aspects, so there is potentially large scope for article improvement in this direction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Judging from the description in Template:Surname and many examples I see, it seems that name pages do work differently with regard to notability requirements as compared to "normal" articles. They seem to be more or less a special type of disambiguation page. Is that correct? Daranios (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's right, they are basically navigation lists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The thing is this is a fictional name with only two uses. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  When things need disambiguating, it doesn't matter if there are 2 or 20. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Except in this instance disambiguation isn’t needed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a name page this does not need to fullfill WP:GNG as discussed above. I think a sentence adding the Westron version of the name to Bilbo Baggins in the way it does appear at Frodo Baggins#Concept and creation is warranted, and can be verfied by both primary and secondary sources. (I only now have seen that the name appears in the very beginning at Bilbo Baggins, so I am not sure if more is necessary for the name as such. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)) Partially answering Jclemens' question, I did see small pieces of further context, which are probably best included in other articles: The Hobbit Encyclopedia, p. 201, states how we see that the connection between Baggins and Bag End is deliberate, because it also appears in the Westron names. Probably best suited for the Bag End article. This snippet view from Myth Print magazine has criticism on the introduction of the Westron names, referring to Maura Labingi, as they can detract from appreciating the names commonly appearing in the books, like Frodo Baggins. Probably best suited for the Pseudotranslation in The Lord of the Rings article. This article has a bit of commentary on how the names Baggins and Labingi, which both can be related to (to) bag/(to) pocket, are suitable for the character of Bilbo (and Frodo as his heir), i.e. suited for the Bilbo Baggins article. I don't quite get what kind of publication that is, though. Daranios (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both of the two things disambiguated are not common names for the characters by a longshot. Per WP:NAMELIST, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their given name or surname only if they are reasonably well known by it. I assume this also applies to fictional characters, making this DAB page blatantly violate policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think WP:NAMELIST refers to a very different case than ours here, with their example of Lincoln (disambiguation): If there is a term with a number of different meanings, which includes both persons' names and other things, then one should only include very prominent examples (like Abraham Lincoln) in the main disambiguation page, while other persons' names should be spun out into a page like Lincoln (name). Here, we only have names of (fictional) persons. Secondly, the guideline says why it exists in the first place: To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long. That is very much not a problem here. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is presented as a name list, and uses the templates that are intended for real life people. So I have no choice but to judge it as one - if I don't, it has even less of a claim for existence due to violating WP:PTM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see this also as a name list. WP:NAMELIST, despite its title, does not deal with how to construct name lists, but how to deal with regular disambiguation pages which also contain names, and the relationship between regular disambiguation pages and name lists. The part you have quoted therefore does not apply to our name list here, as is directly present in that part: ...should be listed at the disambiguation page.... So no violation of that guideline here. Daranios (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haytham Kenway

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

GAR isn't the right place to judge notability, according to most people. So, starting with WP:BEFORE, the character doesn't have any WP:SIGCOV. We're going to do source analysis now, which is in the reception section. First we got a PC gamer source with zero mention of character/game review, G4t7 dead source, [4] [5] Zero mentions about Haytham, GamesRadar+ has a short trivia content, IGN listicle with trivia content, another IGN's listicle, listicle with a short content, dualshockers' listicle with trivia content, Gamepro's listicle, Gamerevolution's listicle with short content, just a short interview, Comicbook source isn't reception at all, Heavy source contains only trivia quote content, while the last popmatters source is a bit useful, but with short content about the character. Overall, the article still fails WP:GNG; and has no SIGCOV at all. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. The article was nominated for deletion on similar grounds a few years ago, which was dismissed. Nothing has changed since then. Also, the argument that there is no significant coverage is baseless. The article has over 40 sources, you choose to focus on the reception section, ignoring all the others. Also, I don’t see how listicles indicate a lack of notability.

DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're gonna include everything; not sure how these 3 sources with very short content, interview and another trivia-like content at dev info would help WP:GNG. This is not like other fictional characters; when there are a lot of reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DasallmächtigeJ Could you link us to that AfD? It's not on Kenway's talk page for some reason. In any case, consensus can change, so a renomination is valid. Additionally, Reception tends to be the biggest bulk of proving an article's notability. Usually, listicles tend to provide very little to Reception. While there are plenty of exceptions, the ones here seem to be very weak overall, from a glance. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why I couldn’t find it and after some digging I remembered it wasn’t even nominated for deletion. A user simply turned it into a redirect without seeking consensus first. The issue was resolved on my talk page, where the discussion can still be found here. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'keep - I think this just about meets the criteria. I'd agree there isn't three articles that only talk about the subject, but there's an awful lot that at least talk about them. this game radar article talks about how the character feels a bit like a red herring, this Kotaku article talks about them in terms of a game they aren't in and realistically, this interview is about as in-depth as you can get about a character. I think given them, and the other articles cited, the article does a good job showing that this minor character is indeed notable. The GA status, or lack of it, has nothing to do with this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interview counts as a primary source, and thus does not count towards GNG nor SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well, if it was an interview with the game's publisher, I'd probably agree. I don't agree that a voice actor being specifically interviewed by a third party would be primary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'd argue it's primary since it's an interview with a person directly affiliated with the development of the game and the character in question. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters. Every source here is trivial to some degree, and there's a distinct lack of strong sourcing to anchor the article around. Ping me if more sources come up but I'm not seeing anything that's close to meeting the threshold needed to split off here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters - his standalone notability is dubious and there's a clear and obvious WP:ATD to target him to. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a lot of the reception is trivial, and while one could argue it helps re-examine the series antagonists it doesn't have much substance beyond that and even then it's shaky. Importance outside the parent work just isn't indicated.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More specific commentary on the sourcing situation would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters - Discounting the primary sources and sources that are just trivial coverage, the sources currently in the article are largely reviews or coverage of Assassin's Creed 3 or the series as a whole, that just discuss Haytham as part of that larger review/discussion. These kinds of sources lend themselves much better for the subject to be discussed in a broader topic, in this case the character list, than spun out into a separate article. Searches are bringing up more of the same - smaller amounts of coverage as part of the broader discussion of the game and its plot as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rorshacma. These are mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs about the character when discussing the game. That reflects how this should be covered on Wikipedia, by mentioning the character in the main game article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Lee Vilenski. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 23:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks likely to merge, but even if it does merge, it should be a "generous" merge that keeps most of the content. This is for sure a borderline case but the GamesRadar article linked above, while not having tons of content on Haytham, establishes him as an important character as far as AC3 is concerned, and AC3 sold a zillion copies. Yes, yes, WP:NOTINHERITED, I saved the link, but I think that it's better to err on the side of inclusiveness in a case like this where we know this character is a big deal and the game is a big deal and the bigness of the deals are linked. SnowFire (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this argument is very much arguing that notability is inherited from AC3. Just because Kenway's important to AC3 doesn't mean he's important overall. An equivalent argument to this would be arguing that something like Zamazenta is instantly notable because it's an important part of Pokemon Shield, which sold a lot of copies, despite the fact Zamazenta has absolutely no claim to notability. I do agree that this should be a decently large merge, given most of the relevant content in this article isn't at the list entry. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is evenly divided between those editors advocating Keep and those arguing for a Merge. I find the Merge argument stronger but maybe those who believe it should be Kept can make a better argument about the sources being adequate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time