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

List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters

AfDs for this article:

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters. The page does not address the concerns raised in that discussion, and continues to be a WP:DIRECTORY that violates WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons has the actually standalone notable monsters. Maybe WP:SALT time for this page too, given that people cannot seem to stop recreating it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Video games, and Games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My reasoning is unchanged from the last AFD for this list, when it was Deleted several years ago. D&D monsters are notable as a group, hence why we have the Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons article that includes lists of some of the more notable examples. Some individual monsters are even notable enough to have their own articles. This list, however, is essentially nothing but a table of contents of various official D&D books from a specific version of the game. It is not even useful as a navigational list, as the vast majority of blue links here just redirect to different lists of D&D monsters. As stated in the nomination, it runs afoul of multiple categories at WP:NOT. Rorshacma (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after vast improvement in sourcing over the condition it was in at time of the first AFD. The article now contains a significant amount of independently sourced content on the concept of monsters in 3.5 edition in general and on specific monsters as well. Failing that, there is significant potential for improvement and this should be moved back Draft rather than deleted again. To counter the claims that this violates WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTDIRECTORY, this is not an indiscriminate list but a list defined by monsters that have been published in specific official D&D 3.5 edition books. It is a sortable drop-down list for a single edition because a list for monsters of all editions would be too big. Monsters of D&D have been discussed in independent commentaries, as clearly shown in this article. These independent sources provide context with referenced explanations. The majority of the content for each monster goes beyond plot summary-only descriptions of the monsters in question. These sources discuss the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of these monsters in addition to concise summaries. These are likewise not excessive listings of statistics that lack context or explanation as each entry contains very little in-game statistical information, and do include explanatory text providing context. It does not present information as an instruction manual or guidebook and does not provide "how-to" explanations on how to play the game or how to use the monsters in the game. These gameplay concepts as a whole and many individually are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context. With the independent sources provided, this list serves an important encyclopedic purpose for readers to better understand the subjects individually and as a whole. This is more than a simple listing without context, which has been adequately supplied as to which elements of the game these came from and when they were published. It also provides a timeline of the game over several years, which provides an inherent context to the growth and establishment of the game over time. This is not a walkthrough, nor does it provide even remotely enough information to play the game. The fact that more of the entries currently lack independent sources is something likely to change over time given how many have been added in the amount of time that this was in draft space, and I believe that in time this list will continue to improve if it remains in article space. BOZ (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It does not present information as an instruction manual or guidebook and does not provide "how-to" explanations on how to play the game or how to use the monsters in the game." An indiscriminate list of creatures and their requisite number is essentially a guide to what monsters appear in the game rather than only including what is notable. The nature of a game guide is that it includes all information regardless of importance. That may be fine for WikiBooks but not Wikipedia proper. I'd support a transwiki if it would make sense but draftification is unlikely to help. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not much has changed since last time and I see little discussion of the entire overarching topic, only random scattered sources on individual monsters (Many of whom already have articles are or already listed elsewhere). Runs afoul of several guidelines. I see no reason to retain this list. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but perhaps reduce to the list of monsters for which new information was introduced, or which are themselves newly introduced. BD2412 T 23:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article gives context, e.g., in the column "description", so it is neither a case of WP:DIRECTORY nor of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The list may be used as game guide, but its purpose is obviously not to be a guide for the game, so WP:GAMEGUIDE also does not hold. --Cyfal (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Obviously not"? How so exactly? GAMEGUIDE is not based on author intent, which is impossible to know for sure, but on the structure of the article, which clearly resembles a guide. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many secondary sources in the article, more are out there to be used for further improvement in the future - some of those from Talk:Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons will apply here - and more are published all the time. So there has been significant improvement since the result of the last deletion result. This is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list, as there is a large but defined and limited number of entries here. It does not violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY, because it is not a simple listing, but contains more information and sourced commentary. It is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE, because this is not meant to and will not at all help to play the game, but rather illustrates general interest by secondary sources made available for Wikipedia readers in this spin-out topic from Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. It surely is not perfect, but as always Wikipedia is WP:WORKINPROGRESS, and the current state has been approved through the official channel of WP:AFC to come back into mainspace, as is the proper way to go after improvements after a deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Telos Publishing

AfDs for this article:

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

A publishing company that primarily publishes Doctor Who books. I had just BOLDly merged Telos Doctor Who novellas into the Telos Publishing article due to a lack of coverage and SIZESPLIT rationale, and decided to look into the company as a whole, but found very little. Outside of a bunch of PRIMARY sources that state the awards they won, a single PRIMARY interview essentially advertising Telos in Starburst, and various single mentions in books (Either because they were referencing something they published or mentioning them once as someone who publishes Doctor Who) the only real significant article I found was this [1]. I'm honestly not convinced their spin-off series Time Hunter and the various novellas they've made with independent articles are notable, either, since my brief searches turned up little on them either, but that's a discussion for another day. Given the pitiful amount of coverage this Publishing group has received, I'd suggest a redirect or a merge to List of books based on Doctor Who, where Telos Publishing and its novellas can be mentioned in the context of the wider Doctor Who novel body they seem to only be discussed as a part of. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, Television, and Companies. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Companions

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

An audio drama that I can't find listed anywhere else on the site. A BEFORE search yields nothing but one ROUTINE hit [2] that does not provide SIGCOV indicating this subject is notable. No notability and no AtD means that this page should likely be deleted. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Radio, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

InConJunction

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

Not a notable fan convention. There is no reliable sourcing here that proves the event/organization is notable in its own right. I already removed a section that consisted an overview of past conventions, with a lot of namedropping. Google News provides nothing at all, except for a program note or two from the local paper, which convention tells us is not enough to establish notability. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The convention is notable for the following reasons:

1. It was the first science-fiction convention in Indianapolis, established in 1981

2. It has spanned four decades as a regular event, marking it of cultural significance to the city

3. It has been, since its beginning, run by a volunteer organization that includes charity work as part of its yearly programming

4. The convention has attracted notable authors and artists that are respected in the science-fiction and fan communities. No name-dropping intended, but these guests lead credence to the importance of the event to the community Mikhaine (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional consideration is that similar events/organizations maintain a wiki presence, which include past events and summarize programming. The following examples are both active and inactive conventions. Note also that the InConJunction page has been in use since 2005.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windycon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorthAmeriCon_%2779 Mikhaine (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing at other articles is NEVER helpful--unless they are GAs or FAs. The things you say--well, if reliable secondary sources (not just the Indy Star) said it, we'd have something to go on. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I agree with @Drmies. Looks like a promotional essay. I disagree with @Mikhaine. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Events, and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank the Pug

AfDs for this article:

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

I was surprised that this character from Men in Black has his own article. This character appears in the first MIB, and his most significant role is in MIIB. He doesn't appear at all in MIB³. WP:GNG is questionable, the sourcing in this article is not great, Screen Rant is marginally reliable and I am unsure what ref 4 is exactly. From a Google search I could only really find fandom coverage. The article also violates WP:NOTPLOT, as only his role in the films is written about. I don't think this article should be deleted, but instead redirected to his biggest role, which is MIIB. As much as I love this little guy, the original AfD nomination prediction from 2008 turned out to be correct. 'This character does not assert notability outside the films and cartoon series. It is unlikely that any third party sources will ever talk about it outside of the context of the series, so it has no reason to exist.' 11WB (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Animal. 11WB (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hardly anything found about this character [3] was the closest to a RS I could find. Sourcing isn't the article isn't quite enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Men in Black (1997 film). It's his first appearance, and I can't see any other mergeable content on Frank's page worth preserving. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nahida (Genshin Impact)

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

Fails WP:GNG - while the article is WP:REFBOMBed fairly heavily, there is only trivial coverage and unreliable sources. Multiple editors have noted its failure of GNG, but it was moved into mainspace anyway while disregarding the advice, so I am forced to create an AfD for it to determine the way forward. List of Genshin Impact characters is a potential WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:23, 26 August 2025 (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. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is this, which appears to be SIGCOV. There is also this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not waste peoples' time throwing out random sources where the name pops up. Explain what exactly about each source demonstrates significant coverage, especially since they are in different languages and not easily understandable. The first source appears to be about "translation techniques" and only uses the character as a random example? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about the first source, it doesn't look very usable. I haven't had the opportunity to look at the second source in detail, but it at least looks promising. Gommeh 📖/🎮 11:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just used the ChatGPT to help me read through the second journal. It seems to not have character-design analysis at all for Nahida. Quote ChatGPT: The piece titled “Artificial Intelligence Represented in Genshin Impact, Regulatory Initiatives, and Algorithmic Literacy” uses Genshin Impact’s Sumeru/Akasha arc as a case study to think about real-world AI issues. However, this article uses Nahida’s role as a metaphor for promoting algorithmic literacy and resisting blind dependence on data systems. This feels tricky. If we are to use this source in the article, I can't imagine what the Reception will be like -- though indeed "usable." SuperGrey (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ChatGPT conversation. The article is too long to get a word-to-word translation from ChatGPT, so this is as far as I can get. SuperGrey (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I agree that this page should stay in Draft namespace, GNG talks about its potential, not its current state. We were just talking about the RS problem in the talk page, and I found these two sources: Youxi Tuoluo and Final Weapon. The reliability of both sources is currently being discussed in zhwiki and our source discussion page. Therefore, I suggested that we could wait till clearer source evaluations are established -- but alas, @Zxcvbnm probably did not notice the discussion thread in the talk page. SuperGrey (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately I did miss that. However, I believe that is fairly moot with regards to this article, as the Final Weapon source is trivial coverage regardless, and is largely about the more overarching plot of the DLC/expansion/patch/etc. than the character of Nahida herself. It seems the other source is essentially the same, with only trivial coverage of the character. Therefore, whether or not it is considered reliable, it shouldn't matter for the purposes of this discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the other source is essentially the same, with only trivial coverage of the character. -- You need to READ the source, whether through Google Translate or some AI translators. I personally find the Youxi Tuoluo article to be largely focused on Nahida's character design. SuperGrey (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did read it, but it seems like a review of the new story/expansion at large, discussing the character of Nahida in an incidental manner while doing so. I'm not sure it rises to the level of SIGCOV within that summary. Assuming people do believe that it does, it's still just one source out of multiple ones needed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree your point, though SIGCOV looks good enough for Chinese game media like Youxi Tuoluo. They rarely write article dedicated to fictional character only, as they (the good ones) care more about the real-world perspective than English media do.

Here is the third round source search:

Game Daily. A marginally reliable source, so not for GNG, though it might be useful in the article.
Youxi Putao. A generally reliable source, yet the article itself talks about lots of stuff, while Nahida is just a small portion of it. Might be SIGCOV, but that's even more up-to-debate than the Youxi Tuoluo article.

And three more passing mentions that might be useful for the article: Youxi Putao, Youxi Putao, Jinghe.

Heck, why not just write an article about Sumeru instead? My three source hunts have already proven that Sumeru is GNG. We can even think of one possible solution to be redirecting Nahida (Genshin Impact) to a section inside Sumeru (Genshin Impact). SuperGrey (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

zh:须弥 (原神) is translation-worthy if anyone decides to write Sumeru (Genshin Impact). SuperGrey (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get on it then. As a Genshin fan I think it's about time I write a draft about it. I've gone ahead and done that at Draft:Sumeru (Genshin Impact). Gommeh 📖/🎮 13:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Youxi Tuoluo source is definitely useable, either in an article about Nahida (though maybe not to demonstrate notability) or in one about Sumeru as a whole. I found it quite informative and reliable. Gommeh 📖/🎮 14:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Singapore. jolielover♥talk 10:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where on-wiki was this discussed beforehand? Wherever it was, I must have missed it. Gommeh 📖/🎮 13:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Genshin Impact characters. I did a LOT of source searching for this character back in 2024 when I made the articles for Furina and Paimon. Unfortunately, there is not enough critical commentary towards Nahida herself to justify an article. It sucks because she IS mentioned in sources a lot (hence the refbombing), but none of it is substantial. The best there is is attribution or discussion of her popularity, but it's not actual reception. None of what is in the article right now, as a matter of fact, is reception. FYI Venti had stronger sourcing out there regarding him than Nahida, and that article was also redirected. There's just not enough here. λ NegativeMP1 20:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. @Gommeh: you can start moving content into List of Genshin Impact characters, in a concise manner. The List itself is very fancruft right now -- you may need to restructure it a bit. SuperGrey (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I will later, right now I have a few more important projects related to Genshin that I'm working on at the moment, including the Sumeru draft I mentioned earlier. I'd be more than willing to turn the article into a stub, but IDK if there's enough notability even for that. Would like to hear thoughts on that idea. Gommeh 📖/🎮 00:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of the Bane

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

I'm going through The Sarah Jane Adventures serials right now to figure out the sourcing on them, and this serial is something I wanted to discuss more thoroughly given it's currently a GA (Albeit a very old one- 2008 is ancient in GA terms). From a search, even back to the time period when it was airing, I cannot find a single review on the topic. Beyond that, there's some decent analysis in [4] this book, but that's about all. Any other mentions of the serial are merely discussing the character of Sarah Jane Smith and mentioning her role and how she's characterized in this, and are not actually reviews or analysis of the serial itself. The current article only has viewing figures, and no reviews whatsoever, and a good chunk of it is unsourced. I do not believe there's enough to support a whole article here given the bulk of this article is plot summary and what little real world info that exists is minimal. I'd suggest a redirect to List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials as an AtD, since there is a valid place for this redirect to point for the time being. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures – The article on “Invasion of the Bane” may not meet WP:NTV for a standalone page. Episodes lacking independent notability should be covered in series or season articles. Merging preserves viewership and character introductions while addressing notability concerns.

Editor1769 22:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robotman (Robert Crane)

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

Yet another minor comic book character whose entry is just plot summary+list of appearances, and my WP:BEFORE yields nothing to help with WP:GNG. Suggest redirecting to the List of DC Comics characters#R per WP:ATD-R. Years of clean up and we likely still have over a hundred similar entry, pretty much every second comic book character I still click looks like this :( Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 25 August 2025 (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} 09:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to List of DC Comics characters: R per WP:ATD. Oppose mere redirect. There's a decent amount of sourced content and the list currently does not include the character. There should be some information on the character transferred into the list. Probably not at the current level of detail; hence "selective".4meter4 (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of DC Comics characters: R per 4meter4 - The sources (both in article and found in searching) are not the greatest, and do not appear to be enough significant coverage to support an independent article. But the character does look to have enough that being included in a character list would be appropriate, and as they are not currently listed there that I can see, a light merge should be done to add them. Rorshacma (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: R in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. I have already set up a section for anyone called Robotman there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Superman (Earth-Two)

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

Nothing in this article, or my before, suggests that this niche version of Superman merits a stand-alone article. Plot summary, list of appearances, and that's it. WP:GNG fail. As for WP:ATD-R; he is not mentioned at List_of_DC_Comics_characters:_S (although adding a heading there would be easy). The best I see right now would be Alternative_versions_of_Superman#Golden_Age_1938-1950s. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:52, 25 August 2025 (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} 09:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alternative_versions_of_Superman#Golden_Age_1938-1950s per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the proposed page in the nom. I'm not sure of the notability of the target page, but for now it's definitely the best page for covering the information about this character. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the section in question at Alternative versions of Superman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE like how they should've saved the Earth-Two history of Joker on his page. How would one list an Earth-Two counterpart on the List of DC Comics characters page anyway? Though Val-Zod should be merged with List of DC Comics characters: V. --Rtkat3 (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pokelego999. A character article doesn't immediately require a split simply because they have been portrayed in multiple different ways. It's not clear to me that these are separately notable, and even then, this is a WP:NOPAGE situation where the differences can be briefly summarized. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Earth-Two characters

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

A list of non-notable characters, pure plot sourced to plot (comic books). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth-Two looks likely to end up in a redirect (target is not decided yet, maybe List of DC Multiverse worlds?), with maybe a bit of a merge. I am somewhat at a loss where to redirect/merge this lists of a characters (from what appears to be a non-notable setting). Lists of DC Comics characters? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into appropriate lists within Lists of DC Comics characters. Ugh… we should merge these into the DC comic character list pages… but there are many by alphabetical order so there isn’t a clean article to article merge. Not sure how to technically handle the attribution requirement in that context. What a nightmare. We might need to get help from admins at Wikipedia:Copyright problems to clarify how to go about this merge/split because following the normal process isn’t possible and I don’t know as if leaving a redirect is an option. 4meter4 (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any exclusive characters listed on that page to their respectful List of DC Comics characters pages in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE...especially the ones from the Earth 2 comics. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. I have no preference on the merge target. I agree that the lists could be better organized, but spinning them out into multiple non-notable list topics isn't the answer. This can be revisited through the editing process. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G.I. Robot

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

A character from DC Comics. A search yields largely plot summary or VALNET sources. I did find one solid Comicbook.com hit [5] but beyond that it's largely trivial mentions or the aforementioned plot summary and Valnet. There is very little in the way of WP:SIGCOV to satisfy a whole article split off the characters list for this character, especially given the character's general lack of appearances in the franchise. I'd suggest a redirect to the character's entry at List of DC Comics characters: G, where this information, albeit with a trimmed down plot summary, can be covered much more succinctly with other characters from the series. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and United States of America. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No reception/analysis, plot summary+list of appearances=fail of WP:GNG I fear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: G in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Piotrus. Fails WP:NOT and WP:GNG without significant reliable reception. I'd have no objection if someone tried to WP:PRESERVE some of the WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs with a slight merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. The unstruck Delete vote by Pokelego is superseded by their following weak keep after improvements by Rulamb. (non-admin closure) Moritoriko (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who parodies

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who in popular culture, this list is also WP:INDISCRIMINATE and is completely unsourced. I also think this fails WP:NLIST. Any possibility of an article covering this should be in an article called "Cultural impact of Doctor Who" or similar. jolielover♥talk 12:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Popular culture, Lists, and United Kingdom. jolielover♥talk 12:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing much to retain here. Segaton (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Procedural) keep All these questions where discussed in the lengthy deletion discussion of just a few months ago, and the nomination does not address any of the arguments there, or the improvements made, or the secondary sources raised in the discussion or listed on the talk page. So it seems to me to be a renomination despite nothing having changed. The problem with WP:INDISCRIMINATE has been solved by trimming to examples with are notable (making a lack of references mostly irrelevant, as the blue-linked articles at the target would have those references) or referenced by a secondary source. The idea to rearrange this to be a broader Cultural impact of Doctor Who article is an editorial decision which should have been raised at the talk page or boldly attempted rather than going through the WP:Deletion process. Daranios (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a renomination four months after a "no consensus" close warrants a procedural close. TompaDompa (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not the renomination itself I am concerned about, but the fact that arguments of the previous discussions have neither been acknowledged, nor has new information been presented. We are not supposed to renominate until we get the result we want. There should be a reason given why it is warranted to invest more of the editors' time now after this has been discussed for no less than four weeks not so long ago. But anyways, situation has already been changed since this nomination thanks to Rublamb, so that question has been kind of superseeded. So I guess that turns my procedural keep into a keep, based on some issues having been addressed through editing and others I've commented on here and last time. Daranios (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:HEY. The article now has sources, including several that discuss the topic as a whole, satisfying notability for a stand-alone list. There are enough sources to demonstrate that this article could be expanded and improved in the future, with discussion about the various parodies. It also serves as a directory of sorts for various articles in Wikipedia, since there is not a category for Doctor Who parodies. Mergerd into Cultural impact of Doctor Who is not advised at this time, as that article needs sources and pruning down to notable mentions; this article is the stronger of the two. 16:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC) Rublamb (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should be kept - On the one hand, Doctor Who is a major TV series that has had cultural impact on people in the United Kingdom and therefore has produced multiple parodies. On the other hand, I would prefer to first see an article in general on the Cultural impact of the series as mentioned by TompaDompa. In light of there not being an existing article on the cultural impact, I think it is important to maintain this article. I do think that the list itself merits keeping on its own since there is such a multitude of parodies and mentions in popular culture. MelikaShokoufandeh (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per last AfD. There is little in the way of overarching coverage of parodies, which is required of Wikipedia:LISTN. Yes, we can verify individual parodies exist, but there's little discussing the entire topic, which we need. There's only one source that really provides SIGCOV of this, and one source really isn't enough in this case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two books and two websites. Even though all are not yet used in the article, that is enough to meet WP:GNG. Rublamb (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rublamb which sources are you discussing? I only saw the one major SIGCOV piece when I checked, but I may have missed the sources you are discussing in there. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are either used in the article, are used but also have more info that can be added, or are from the further reading section,

Booth, Paul. Playing Fans: Negotiating Fandom and Media in the Digital Age. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2017. p. 102–104. ISBN 9781609383190.
Valdron, D. G. A Pirate's History of Doctor Who: the unauthorized stories. Fossil Cove Press, 1990. pp. 170–171. . ISBN 978-1-990860-24-9
Jowett, Lorna. "Chapter : Unruly Divergence: Parody and Comedy" in Dancing with the Doctor: Dimensions of Gender in the *Doctor Who Universe. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017. ISBN 978-1-78672-146-4
Hyland, Rachel (15 November 2013). "Classic Doctor Who: Parodies". Reactor. Tor Books. Retrieved 20 August 2025.

These are also articles that have some coverage:

Rouner, Jef. "Top 10 Doctor Who Parody Videos". Houston Press. Retrieved 20 August 2025.
Hyde, Eliza (21 June 2022). "Doctor Who: 10 Funny Parodies And Sketches". Game Rant. Retrieved 20 August 2025.

Rublamb (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rublamb I wouldn't consider the Game Rant source SIGCOV per Wikipedia:VALNET, but I do have to admit the other sources scrape together just enough for me to be confident that this subject does have some notability. Willing to strike my previous vote and go Weak Keep on this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been improved now and the sources above show clear GNG. It is a notable topic and should be kept. I also think it is too large to be merged onto the main Doctor Who articles. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Improvements made appear to meet WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2025 (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.

Science fiction and fantasy proposed deletions

Exiles to Glory (via WP:PROD on 11 April 2025)