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

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]

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]

Sparky Flames

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

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:INDEPENDENT coverage, best I could find is a passing mention by USA Today. jolielover♥talk 05:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Animal, Education, and Sports. jolielover♥talk 05:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Liberty Flames and Lady Flames. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some coverage exists, see here, here, and here. Apparently, this mascot has had several different names over the years, while maintaining the same basic eagle persona throughout. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Ejgreen77. NotJamestack (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep per sources provided above which show SIGCOV. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I am not convinced by the coverage in sources, which appears WP:TRIVIAL, and does not demonstrate standalone notability. I believe that a section in Liberty Flames and Lady Flames can easily encompass the mascot. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fails WP:GNG. Even with the sources found, it would be WP:OR to create an article about several different mascots under several different names. They would be more appropriate to be grouped at the main article about the team, but all the mascots individually fail WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:01, 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 [1] 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 redirect‎ to ~~List of DC Universe locations~~List of DC Multiverse worlds without prejudice against selective merge. Owen× ☎ 13:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earth-Three

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

Similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth-Two I just nominated for discussiong. Again, nothing in the article, nor my BEFORE, suggests this meets WP:GNG. We have a lengthy plot summary and list of appearances (as setting). Publication history section is mostly unreferenced and ORish. WP:ATD-R suggests List of DC Universe locations might work, although right now Earth-2 is not mentioned there as an entry (just as part of some other plot summaries). Multiverse (DC Comics) might offer another alternative for redirecting, or perhaps List of DC Multiverse worlds? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 19 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} 12:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Besides missing WP:SIGCOV, there are large amounts of WP:OR here. I'm open on the redirect target. Multiverse (DC Comics) seems like a notable parent topic, and the other lists could still include an entry. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Multiverse worlds in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:27, 25 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.

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 List of DC Universe locations without prejudice against selective merge. Whether the target itself is notable or not is a question for its own AfD. Owen× ☎ 13:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earth-Two

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

Nothing in the article, nor my BEFORE, suggests this meets WP:GNG. We have a lengthy plot summary and list of appearances (as setting). Publication history section is mostly unreferenced and ORish. WP:ATD-R suggests List of DC Universe locations might work, although right now Earth-2 is not mentioned there as an entry (just as part of some other plot summaries). Multiverse (DC Comics) might offer another alternative for redirecting, or perhaps List of DC Multiverse worlds? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 19 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} 12:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Besides failing the WP:GNG, this contains a lot of WP:OR. The Multiverse (DC Comics) would be a good parent article for an WP:ATD-R, with more coverage in reliable third party sources. No objection to mentioning at various lists too, such as List of DC Multiverse worlds or List of DC Universe locations (which also seem to overlap a lot). No strong feeling on what the main redirect could be. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Multiverse worlds in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Will the nominator also be going after the List of Earth-Two characters as well? --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rtkat3 Thanks, I will, now that I know if it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see a target that is actually notable enough to merit redirection. Both Multiverse (DC Comics) and List of DC Multiverse worlds appear to fail GNG, as does this article. Redirecting a non-notable page to another non-notable page doesn't help, so deletion is likely better. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Academic publisher Routledge has a whole book dedicated to the DC Multiverse, The Worlds of DC Comics. So it seems very unlikely that this topic fails WP:GNG. Daranios (talk) 10:04, 26 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.

Fei Long

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

Article does not establish notability; all of the reception is a combination of list entries and a poll, with arguably the only notable thing being the rumors that his apparent similarities with Bruce Lee resulted in his absence from the series. This is very easy to sum up in a handful of sentences, so without any additional proof of notability beyond that, I'm inclined to say that the article doesn't need to exist. I also did a WP:BEFORE check in the past and found little to nothing outside of articles talking about the Bruce Lee stuff. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect Coverage of Fei Long is almost entirely trivial in nature, he only appears notable enough for a list entry. Furthermore, this appears to be a cut and paste move of the original article at Feilong (Street Fighter)... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect per above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect per all. I don't see an improvement in the sources to pass the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect per all. Not really much here and nothing that passes GNG. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Huh? A pure redirect does not at all make sense to me. I assume this is to Super Street Fighter II#Characters? There is only pure description and no secondary sources there. The criticism is that the secondary sources we have here are easily summarized in a short commentary and therefore does not deserve a stand-alone article. But that would mean the obvious solution is a merge in the form of such a short, summarized commentary in accordance with WP:ATD-M. Here we have commentary in secondary sources, exactly what treatment of fictional topics asks for. How would throwing this out again in the form of a pure redirect be in any way beneficial? Daranios (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm, Kung Fu Man, Shooterwalker, and Pokelego999: Do you really believe that removing all secondary sources and the "handful of sentences" and the "notable thing", perceived "similarities with Bruce Lee", as even acknowledged by the nominator, in making this a pure redirect is more beneficial that a selective merge? If so, why? Daranios (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: In truth, I assumed it linked to the character list with information on Fei Long, I was unaware that it had been boldly gutted by User:Kung Fu Man in February 2025 and now redirected to a simple paragraph with hardly any information. What he did to List of Street Fighter series characters is tatamount to soft deletion while doing an end run around AfD, and it is misleading to first split off the page into several smaller lists and then redirect the smaller lists shortly thereafter, especially if this was done on purpose.

Unfortunately, now there are many intermediate edits after he split the page off, but I would heavily suggest restoring the character entries on List of Street Fighter series characters and preventing it from being boldly gutted by any editor. This was nothing short of disruptive editing done without discussion because of one user's belief that the list was a "mess". On the list's talk page, a separate user voiced their concerns with the massive content deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zx, I will implore you (once again) to assume some good faith and not just fire off baseless accusations. Most of the Street Fighter cast now have standalone articles, and the old list was a cruft wurm trying to splice together multiple different groups of games with vastly different receptions and a directory that did absolutely nothing to inform anyone: SF1, SF2, Final Fight, the SFEX characters, SF3, and the additions from 4/5/6, all of which had very different directions. A SF2 list was spun out separately and only retired when everyone *except* Fei Long ended up with a standalone article, and it made no sense to maintain a list just for a character that could be described as "Character based on Bruce Lee who appeared in a few games and briefly in related media".

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of every bit of info, especially for a character that can be summed up as And Lists were certainly never meant to be the 'dump it and move on' dropoff points that one and so many others became. Calling cleaning up a nearly two-decade mess disruptive let alone demanding it must stay is utterly insulting at the very least, especially when other areas like Pokemon have illustrated a consensus that these franchise-covering lists pulling in different directions may fail LISTN, let alone be unsustainable.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are an editor of decades, you have to know better than to accuse editors of acting in bad faith by now Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It simply makes no sense that one could, after other issues like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Darkstalkers characters (2nd nomination), believe that near blanking a list of characters of a major series could possibly be uncontroversial. I'm not saying it was intended in bad faith, but it is definitely causing disruption to not discuss a change like that. The article could have been fixed, without nearly blanking it, nor did it merit splitting without discussion (that I am aware of). The article was in a poor state, indeed, but deletion is not cleanup as has been expounded upon many times and should be known to veteran editors. Perhaps the article was overlong; it could have been agreed that splitting was an adequate solution, but then those split lists were apparently redirected as well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, this is a discussion better had at the list's talk page. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that was the thing, splits were done but then the SF2 list steadily changed to just Fei Long, and there isn't that much to *say* about Fei Long on his own besides him being an example of Bruceploitation. Even T. Hawk got spun out. There comes a question of what's the point of it existing then.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's understandable that a full discussion of this would be better on the talk page. But, to sum up my thoughts, even a cursory search finds some notability for Street Fighter II's characters as a whole beyond just Fei Long, so I find the idea that it shouldn't exist unbelievable. This 2025 retrospective devotes a decent chunk to the character roster, saying such things as, "No matter how many times or years you play Street Fighter II, no two matches ever feel alike, and the perfectly balanced roster of now iconic characters still, to this day, inspires modern fighting games.". This BBC article does as well, and this The Gamer list. Street Fighter II's characters are very well-known and iconic, there's easily enough for a standalone list only of Street Fighter II characters, even though many overlap with later entries heavily. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point being made is that SFII's cast is almost entirely split, and I feel that a lot of the commentary on the cast can comfortably fit into SFII's article itself. It's not a big deal if it gets recreated if it's found that there are size concerns, but I think expanding to cover this (and Fei Long some more) should be fine. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so there remain concerns, which may be best discussed further on the list talk page. But based on the situation as it currently is, getting back to our issue here: I am reading Cukie Gherkin's last statemnt in a way that they are supporting a merge. What about the others?
Kung Fu Man stated that there isn't that much to *say* about Fei Long on his own besides him being an example of Bruceploitation. So there is something to say, even if it is not much. So would you support a limited merge of that? Daranios (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daranios Worked it into Super Street Fighter II#Characters, the old redirect target, and formatted a bit more clearly. How is that looking there?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: Thanks! For me, a condensed reception is still missing from the target in accordance with MOS:FICTIONPLOT. More importantly, the target is still missing secondary sources we have here. Daranios (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources should be enough for anyone else to work in, though a reception section in there could be WP:UNDUE. Even in a lot of list merges those end up getting lost or removed over time to avoid awkward handling.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've kind of feared this argument might come up. MOS:FICTIONPLOT is one place which spells out that reception is something we would like to have on Wikipedia for topics of fiction. Now the argument starting this discussion is that there is not enough coverage for a stand-alone article. But now comes the WP:UNDUE argument that there is too much here to merge. In my view, in most cases only one or the other can be valid, not both. If there is too much of coverage, which is not excluded by WP:NOT, to fit into a parent topic article, then we are at a point where things should be WP:SPLIT out, either into its own article, or into a list article. If there is not so much as to support a split-out article, things should be accomodated into the parent topic article until that coverage has grown to a point where it supports splitting things out. Daranios (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Secondary sources should be enough for anyone else to work in with regard to the deletion discussion means result should be a merge of these sources, rather than a redirect, which technically means nothing (further) is transferred in due process. Daranios (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE can also cover overly discussing one section over others. The sources in question are all saying the same thing though: he's a Bruce Lee clone, and citing multiple statements saying that in different ways won't add anything. The gamesradar ref is even a list of them. There's really next to no information to bring over. I'm sorry, but I feel restoring the redirect is adequate there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What sources do you think should be added? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those reliable sources which support the transferred statment. IGN and GamesRadar are reliable sources. I am not familiar enough with the other three supporting this to say if they are too and which of them are the most suitable. Daranios (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though, for the game page, it would be advisable to include particularly significant reception content, something more general rather than covering all character reception. If there was an extensive article on the Brucesploitation behind Fei Long, I could see that included, but rankings feel too insubstantial. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please specify the target article you want this article Redirected to. It's been redirected several times and most of these titles are no longer articles but are Redirects so it's not clear what participants are asking for. In an AFD, whenever you are arguing for a Redirect or Merge outcome, specify the target page and double-check to make sure it is an existing article, not a redirect page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man and Cukie Gherkin: I see, but I disagree. I've double-checked that Den of Geek is also a reliable source. So we have those three and the Japanese one agreeing that the character was generally positively received, and that he is a case of Bruce Lee homage/plotation done well beyond just being a case of Bruceploitation. I don't see a reason to discount those because they are in list form. It would mean another two short sentences or so merged over. I don't at all see this as WP:UNDUE: The other three characters at the target are referred to their own articles. If this one does not have enough coverage for a stand-alone one, three sentences which fully conform to MOS:FICTIONPLOT in the characters section don't seem like a problem to me. I did not actually want to invest more time here, but as we've come so far now, would you two object to me merging over such two sentences or so?

@Cukie Gherkin: You yourself stated that this character is easy to sum up in a handful of sentences. Now we have one (and unreferenced). So unless you would like to backtrack on your earlier statement, what was it that you were considering to sum up beyond what we have now at the target? And if you say it would be advisable to include particularly significant reception content, something more general rather than covering all character reception (despite the fact that we already have a characters section), does that mean you would prefer to have such character reception in List of Street Fighter series characters#Reception? That section is currently empty and just waiting to get content. Daranios (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

😕 Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target should be Super Street Fighter II#Characters.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've actually started a draft to restore the article prior to this current restoration. I've gathered up all the reception I can find, so far. I don't think it's enough quite yet, but I'm sure there's more. Any thoughts on this? (@Daranios:, @Kung Fu Man:, @Cukie Gherkin:) MoonJet (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think it's still too lacking for anything besides a character list, but I support the full recreation of List of Street Fighter series characters and putting it there. (Though I do not believe the "series" in the title is necessary if it remains a full-franchise list). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a superior option would be to look into lists for characters based on other SFs (SFIV, V, VI, Alpha, and Final Fight), which should cover nearly every major SF character. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, I know Street Fighters characters as a whole are notable, and Street Fighter II's as a whole, but is the same true for Street Fighter 4? Furthermore, listing someone as a "Street Fighter 4 character", for example, may seem like ignoring the game where they originated from. I believe that Fei Long should be placed in the earliest possible list historically, whether it be an overall Street Fighter one, or a Street Fighter II-only one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah, the proposal would just be to cover the characters originating in these games/series. With II and III, almost all of the cast is split out, so the reception and dev info would be largely redundant. I think it'd be most reasonable to just cover Fei Long in SFII and discussing the Brucesploitation stuff. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like there's a strong consensus to merge the article. For now, I would like people to be willing to agree to merge to Street Fighter II#Characters to avoid a no consensus result, and discussions about the list can take place in a more public venue. @Zxcvbnm: @Daranios: - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with that, as long as we do not put too much restriction onto the length of what can reasonably be accomodated at Street Fighter II#Characters, as discussed above. MoonJet's contributions are great and might even get this into enough for a stand-alone article, but one relevant source there is a Master thesis, which can only be used in some cases according to WP:THESIS, and I am not sure if this is one of them. Daranios (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Portlandia characters

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:OR. WP:FANCRUFT --wooden superman 12:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. --wooden superman 12:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Portlandia per nom. The character list does not warrant a WP:TVSPLIT. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep via WP:HEY. It now has sources that discuss the characters as a group, fulfilling the requirement for a stand-alone list article. This addresses the concerns of the AfD nomination. Note that there are nine other article about this series: the main article and its eight seasons. Rublamb (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources added. That was fast. Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Portlandia per nom. The HEY changes do not address Wikipedia:NOTPLOT, and given the lack of reception I'm not seeing a valid Wikipedia:NOPAGE rationale for a split off the main article when this list can easily be contained at the series article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The criteria of WP:NOPAGE also looks at whether or not references are available to support the article. WP:NLIST says, "Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists." Since there are numerous sources that discuss the subject of this ist article as a group, this topics meets notability. Rublamb (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Wikipedia:NOTPLOT. These sources do not support any non-plot info, meaning it fails what Wikipedia is not. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was not based on NOTPLOT but on WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:OR. WP:FANCRUFT. Those have since been resolved. Rublamb (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rublamb just because an AfD was initiated under one rationale does not mean that it doesn't fail under another. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The sources show that the article clearly meets WP:NLIST. Yes, the article needs more real world info/reception, but it can be expanded upon. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: this is an interesting one because it violates WP:NOTPLOT but passes WP:NLIST. I suggest keeping the article but rewriting it to comply with the WP:MOS.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since meeting notability is the primary rule for inclusion in Wikipedia, that is the standard we shoud be looking at. There are many articles in Wikipedia that cover the characters of television shows, movies, comic books, or novels. Clearly, such lists are allowable, with the right sources or content. In this specific case, I have yet to see anyone explain why they believe this article fails under WP:NOTPLOT. Rublamb (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rublamb it fails NOTPLOT because the article is still all plot. There is no significant coverage indicating any real world significance for the characters specifically, which is required under NLIST, and neither this page nor the original page are so big together that they have significant SIZE issues. Per Wikipedia:NOPAGE, the characters and main article are better covered together given the fact they inherently rely upon each other to be understood, and this combined with the fact we have a page that is entirely plot summary and does not have SIZE issues makes it so this article doesn't have a policy-based reason for being split. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with merging into the main article, but do not believe it is necessary. There is no requirement or guideline for "significant coverage indicating...real world significance for the characters" in WP:STANDALONE or MOS:LISTS. (That was part of a failed proposal and should, therefore, not be used as a criteria here or for any other article). MOS:PLOT allows both plot summaries and characters descriptions; it simply calls for context in addition to plot summaries. If you consider the first item on the list:
Fred and Carrie: played with minimal costumes, makeup, and hairstyling, these are the show's version of Armisen and Brownstein themselves, living in a house together in Portland. Their onscreen relationship was inspired by Bert and Ernie's relationship on Sesame Street.

This text provides context: the actors are portraying themselves and the inspiration for the characters from outside the world of Portlandia. There is zero description of of specific storylines or plots involving these characters, but the article does describe the characters presentation (costuming, makeup, hairstyle). I know I am just pulling the first item of the list, but this demonstrates that the article is not "all plot". Also, this is a spinout article, with more context being provided via its main article. Rublamb (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rublamb spin-outs are only done in cases of size concerns, as stated on the spinout page. I do not believe at present there's a major size concern here, in the case of either page, and the coverage of these characters as a whole does not seem to have enough coverage to warrant such a split, either. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTPLOT is about articles about creative works. This is a spinout article, which is pretty common (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Spinout_articles). The idea is if there's sufficient coverage of some part of a creative work (characters, for example), with more detail than makes sense to include in the main article, you can spin that part out. With the addition of sources that somewhat pass NLIST, I think we're in fine shape here. Up to regular editors of these articles whether to propose to merge it back into the article afterwards in some fashion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a valid WP:SPINOUT. The sourcing is also there to pass WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow further consideration of the NOTPLOT argument: there is no carveout for spinoff articles, articles based entirely on plot are not permissible. To be clear, I am not expressing an opinion on the state of the sourcing, only on the arguments presented here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Portlandia, there is absolutely no need for a spinoff article here, the main article has only 1,600 words of prose! It'd have to be much longer for a spinoff to be necessary, especially given this list of characters is so short. Even if you fully merged the list and deleted nothing the resulting article would be less than a quarter of the length WP:SIZERULE recommends an article should be split at. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Tyler

AfDs for this article:

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

A side character in Doctor Who. The only real hits I can find on this guy that are semi-strong are reviews for Father's Day (Doctor Who); most hits for subsequent appearances are either brief, trivial mentions, or purely plot summary. The only semi-strong hit I found was this: [2], which not only is solely about his appearance in Father's Day, but is also just the character being used as an example in the setup to the book's larger point. The character himself is not the subject of discussion here, and even if you did consider this WP:SIGCOV, this is the only strong hit I could find that does not fall into one of the other pratfalls above. Given the bulk of the coverage relates to Pete's role in Father's Day, per WP:NOPAGE, and the fact there's not much SIGCOV for his subsequent appearances, I'd suggest an AtD redirect to Father's Day, as that article is likely going to be the most helpful for understanding who the character is, and subsequent appearances of the character are inherently variations of the one who appeared in that episode. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:08, 3 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, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What pure plot summary RS'es did you find? Remember, plot summaries are transformative and valid secondary sources per WP:PSTS. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, Who Is the Doctor: The Unofficial Guide to Doctor Who: The New Series has one longish sentence of commentary on the character outside of his appearance in "Father's Day", which might be added that episode but would not be a great fit. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's actually already in the article. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge Daranios (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC): In my view we do have a non-stubby article with a reasonable amount development and reception, so I see the minium for notability fulfilled and based on the WP:NOTPAPER I don't see a problem with some duplication with regard to Father's Day (Doctor Who). On the other hand a separate article on the character accommodates his less prominent appearances outside that episode. Still, there is overlap and it's not a very long reception, so I am not strongly opposed to a merge to Father's Day (Doctor Who) either. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Sourcing is limited but not non-existent and as a recurring character there is a downside to redirecting to his main appearance. On balance I think that keeping the article is better for the encyclopedia than redirecting it. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try one more relisting before considering closing this as "No consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Father's Day (Doctor Who). The majority of the article is written in an in-universe style and what real world, not in-universe sources exist can be moved to the article about the main episode. The subsequent appearances of alternate versions of the character can in fact be mentioned in that episode as we don't have a no spoilers policy (for better and for worse). --Mpen320 (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. There are other books with non-trivial analysis of the character. For example see MacRury, Iain; Rustin, Michael (2018). The Inner World of Doctor Who: Psychoanalytic Reflections in Time and Space. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780429921094. This book discusses Pete Tyler on pages 5, 7, 24-29, 33-34, and 37. There's some character analysis in this journal article. If you look in google books and google scholar you can find more. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 The first source is entirely an analysis of Father's Day, which is the issue presented in the nom. The issue isn't that coverage exists, but that it's entirely a subset of coverage about Father's Day, failing Wikipedia:NOPAGE given major subject overlap and the fact that both subjects inherently bolster each other with their coverage together. Do you have the text present in the second article? I can't access it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this, but a relist was requested, which I am happy to undertake. My original closing comment below.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my original closing comment: The result was merge to Father's Day (Doctor Who). The arguments for keep are somewhat ambivalent on retention as a standalone page, but there is no consensus for delete. There are reliable sources presented which indicate that the character and specific episode do feature sufficiently to satisfy notability (although there is concern that this does not satisfy both separately). Given this and given most discussants acknowledge WP:ATD, merge appears the rough consensus. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We need past participants at this AFD to comment on a merge to achieve WP:CONSENSUS. Is there support for an WP:ATD? I am personally neutral on this. I think there is enough independent coverage of the character to support a standalone article and that an ATD isn't necessary. However, I can see how editorially it might make sense to cover this at Father's Day (Doctor Who). So... I neither support or oppose a merge. I would like to hear from the editors actively writing in this area on how they would like to see this topic covered. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 to clarify, do you mean those who already participated in this AfD, or those who work in the Doctor Who topic area? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well both really. Of course any other editors popping in are welcome to comment too.4meter4 (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose then: @Daranios @Eluchil404 @Mpen320 do you all feel swayed in your votes or do you wish to stick to your guns? We need to determine some form of rough consensus, keep, merge, or not, so we should determine some form of compromise here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Father's Day (Doctor Who). Given I'm no longer a closer and can avoid all concerns with supervoting, looking closely through the sourcing, this unfortunately is WP:FANCRUFT, that is WP:NOT. In the article at present, there are only three sources that can be considered non-primary and independent, all of which are the barest of mentions. What's in the SFX article that is not summary of the story line, is more about the actor's contribution to the role, rather than the significance of the role itself. The Radio Times review where the character is mentioned is about the actor's contribution to the episode, rather than anything specific about the character. The Burk text has a sentence that simply notes that he was loved in another episode and is more a comment on the episode being discussed than an assessment of the character. The Ian MacRury book ("This book discusses Pete Tyler on pages 5, 7, 24-29, 33-34, and 37") is not available via Google Books (to me at least), it simply shows the index page which gives those pages. Searching for "Farther's Day" appears to show that references to those pages align with chapter 2 ("Fathers and daughters: Father’s Day and The Parting of the Ways") of the book and are far more about the characther Rose Tyler and her relationship with the Doctor. The Wikipedia Library (via Project Muse) doesn't seem to give me access to the Science Fiction Film and Television article, but given the article's title ("Rose Tyler: The ethics of care and the limit of agency") is it clearly primarily about a different character and there's nothing of what I can see that would indicate the article will contain much more than identifying the relationship between the characters. Thus, we have reliable sourcing which supports material for Shaun Dingwall, the Father's Day episode and material regarding the paternal relationship of one of the main characters, but I cannot see sourcing which supports a stand alone page for this character. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I remain torn. The level of coverage is sufficient to support a redirect/merge but is minimal for a standalone alone article. However, given that he is featured in more than one episode and that there is no properly formatted general character list, I remain of the opinion that a separate article (even if reduced to a stub) is better for the encyclopedia in this case. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect, per WP:ATD. I see some emerging WP:CONSENSUS for a merge between the redirect and keep !votes. Pokelego999 is very active in this area and I trust their analysis of the sources. How much to merge or duplicate can be addressed through editing after the AFD. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contentwise I have very much the same feelings Eluchil404 has expressed just above. But following Shooterwalker's suggestion to rethink with regard to consensus formation and agreeing with their assessment of Pokelego999's track record I am switching to keep or merge. If a merge to Father's Day (Doctor Who) should be the closing result, I just ask that a reference to other appearances of the character outside of that episode be incorporated somehow - so that anyone following the redirect on the character will be pointed to what else there may be on the character beyond that episode. Daranios (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Perhaps I could include a reference that the character appears in subsequent episodes of the show (I.e, something like "A version of Pete Tyler from a parallel universe appears in the following season's episodes...)? Should handle that concern adequately. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time