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

List of Superstore characters

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

Almost all of the citations in this article are primary. Only four non-primary sources are used out of 92. Any useful information can be moved to the series article. (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of EastEnders characters introduced in 1985

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

Extreme WP:FANCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The absolute most I could recommend for any of this staying is as a simple links only list or as a category.

As a side note, I suspect many articles under Template:EastEnders characters would also require work to verify for notability, fancruft, excess info, etc, but good lord that's a crazy number of articles to comb through Shredlordsupreme (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and England. Shredlordsupreme (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles, which are about the same show with the same problems, turning one problematic article into 40 walls of borderline spam:

Comment If this is a concern, then why not bundle all the lists in this series? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny enough, it just took several minutes to properly tag all the involved articles (even with copy/paste) before also listing them here Shredlordsupreme (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the articles meantioned by LaundryPizza03. 99% of the sources are directly primary, the BBC (also primary), Metro (unreliable), Digital Spy, or Radio Times. The articles also suffer heavily from WP:ROUTINE. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per WP:METROSOAPS it's not unreliable for soap opera related articles. Also, Digital Spy isn't a primary source – it reports on products/television that they're interested in. There are hundreds of shows that they don't comment on to the same extent, it is because soap operas get the most amount of viewer interaction and real life information to report on. Also, the articles include many other sources that are not primary or unrelated, such as Manchester Evening News, the Guardian etc. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep soap opera characters meet GNG and List GNG standards. Putting them into one list would lose all the important real life information and audience/critic perception provided. There is in-universe information in it (not fancruft) but that's hardly surprising as all summaries of fictional works do, otherwise it wouldn't make sense. ~2025-39656-21 (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mikeycdiamond's reasoning; there are multiple characters throughout a 60 year-old soap, and we can't hope to catalogue them all, and there's a Wikia that should be doing this, not us. Nathannah • 📮 00:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Danilo and IPs comments. OP you could work with editors to improve them as you seem to be familiar with soap opera articles? 5 albert square (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no time limit to improving these lists and there has always been potential. I agree that 40 years worth of characters is a mammoth task to source - but many are already sourced. The majority of sources meet WP:RS and the lists meet WP:GNG. There is definitely a lot of primary sourcing back to the BBC which makes the show. That does not mean that they are not covered in secondary sources and can be worked on. These lists have always been favoured as a hub for characters to be contained in rather than stand alone articles. They are convenient enough to have around when someone votes merge in single character AFD. These lists may not be considered high brow but that does not mean they should be deleted or nor should we be suggesting they are shunted to fandom/wikia. Wikipedia can be about anything provided it is sourced and is generally notable. Characters from a soap opera that is watched by millions of people are notable. You may not agree but pop culture trash has always been part of this project and the more we continue to rip it apart the less relevant it is going to be. I checked the page views and there are thousands. People are using these for reference for whatever reason. But what will be achieved other than removing knowledge and turning more people away.Rain the 1 01:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep largely in agreement with Raintheone. This is absurd. To claim these articles do not meet notability standards is a wild accusation, with the numerous reputable sources that have and can be found for these articles. If a few of the lists are underdeveloped and could do with more referencing, that does not mean to say the entirety of these articles are non-notable. – Meena • 09:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic of EastEnders characters is notable, with the characters being discussed as a group in secondary sources such as e.g. Slags on Stage: Class, Sex, Art and Desire in British Culture. Sectioning the characters' list according to year seems reasonable. Likewise, I don't see including a summary in a list for characters who have their own articles as absolutely necessary, but as a positive thing as compared to a bare listing (compare the WP:AOAL guideline). The essay WP:FANCRUFT does not ask for deletion of popular culture material, but rather to present them with the right tone and focus, i.e. having sufficient real-world commentary. There may be room for improvement in this regard, but the article already has that, and it can be further improved by regular editing using proper sources like "Death of a matriarch: Soap opera aesthetics, space and memory". The lists don't fall into any of the categories specified at WP:INDISCRIMINATE either. Possibly there may be too much plot-summary on balance, but by no means are they "Summary-only descriptions" or "unexplained statistics". Also, the number of EastEnders characters may be large, but it is finite and clearly-defined. In summary I don't see any problems which could not be fixed by regular editing, therefore I don't see deletion as warranted. Daranios (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasonings above; each page meets the WP:GNG, as well as WP:SIGCOV. Seems a bit targeted to the soap EastEnders, as the main soap article was tagged yesterday, as well. livelikemusic (TALK!) 15:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think these lists should be nominated, they meet WP:GNG and it seems somewhat WP:BLUDGEONING to do them all at once Lajmmoore (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd also add Shredlordsupreme that its important to remember that often its a small number of editors who might work on a very specific topic, so to then have 43 articles all nominated at once, without warning is pretty unkind. We're all humans here Lajmmoore (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty standard mass nomination and I highly doubt SLS meant to hurt any feelings. Nathannah • 📮 22:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These articles are useful and helpful for those wanting to navigate the soap. EmmerdaleFan2001.
Keep spurious nomination. A lot of the content of these articles has been on Wikipedia for over 20 years in one form or another. Very popular TV show which justifies these articles. Eastendersgeek (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuan-ti

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar to the first deletion nom I made that ended in delete, the Yuan-ti still don't have standalone notability as a fictional race. The vast majority of sources are either primary or content farm Valnet site listicle links such as CBR or TheGamer, etc. My point from the previous nom still stands besides the addition of Valnet sites. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:03, 9 December 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) 08:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We also have Heroic Worlds by Lawrence Schick, VentureBeat, International Journal of Arts and Sciences, The Monsters Know What They're Doing, British Journal of Educational Technology, Wired, TechRaptor, The A.V. Club, Bleeding Cool, and For Dummies as sources. If those are not sufficient, then redirecting back to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters would be better than deletion, but I believe the aggregate of these sources demonstrates notability. BOZ (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those look like some pretty good sources. Would you mind linking me to them so I can take a look for myself? (especially the For Dummies one, since I may use it in my campaign, lol) Gommeh 📖 🎮 15:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. :) Most are linked in the article, although a few (like Dummies, sadly are not): [1][2][3] BOZ (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ FYI, International Journal of Arts and Sciences is flagged as predatory journal and probably should be removed as a source :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of a predatory journal is entirely new to me. :o You learn something new every day... BOZ (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the author is reliable, so even if we discount the publisher, we can treat it as a WP:EXPERTSPS that also has WP:USEBYOTHERS (cited in Global Medievalism, a book published by Cambridge University Press). Katzrockso (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any of these sources are SIGCOV and go beyond plot summary? Per WP:THREE. Or even TWO. I'd be happy to vote keep if we have at least two such sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can take a closer look at others when I get a chance, but The Monsters Know What They're Doing is one for certain, as it discusses each creature in great detail, the author talking about which game mechanics he likes and what things make sense and don't. BOZ (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTSOFSOURCES argument currently. Most are trivial mentions or have no mention at all. I am aware that "The Monsters Know What They're Doing" is often typically significant coverage, but that alone can't justify an article, and the REFBOMBing in the article is very strong. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current content based on non-Valnet secondary sources amounts to just over the rough WP:STUB threshold of 250 words, and content based on primary (and situational) sources can supplement that. So we have a full article, therefore fulfilling WP:WHYN. Furthermore there are several Bell of Lost Souls web articles dealing fully or partially with the topic. There are also some more hits in Google Scholar which refer to the yuan-ti, but at this time I can unfortunately not access them to see the extent. Daranios (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – sources above are significant and show much GNG and out of universe information. If there are issues with the article they can be addressed on the talk page surely. ~2025-39656-21 (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be compliant based on the discussion and sources. Not major, but sufficient. Which is all it takes. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mirmo! characters

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

Unreferenced list, except for 1 primary source (official site). Didn't see any reliable sources talking about the characters as a whole. Redirect to Mirmo!#Plot as an alternative to deletion? Mika1h (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Anime and manga, and Lists. Mika1h (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @Mika1h: You should have done bold redirect instead. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mirmo!#Plot per nom. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mirmo!: per nom - no evidence of standalone notability per NLIST. Gommeh 📖 🎮 12:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, some content could be merged if someone can verify it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Martian

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

I'm working on the unreferenced articles backlog. I can't seem to find any reliable sources for this particular comic book character, let alone significant coverage. Nothing from a general search, nothing in Books, nothing in databases like Newspapers.com or the Internet Archive. All with the three different possible names. So this seems to be a WP:GNG failure. Silver seren^C 02:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. BlookyNapsta (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rev-9

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

There's a dearth of critical reception that demonstrates this character was notable apart from the film itself in the article at present, and going looking it's either more press from the time of the film or unreliable sources we wouldn't use. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:23, 8 December 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 Film. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is notable, well-sourced, exists for many years, and was translated into several languages. What is the reason to delete?

In the past, it was already nominated for deletetion but was voted to stay.

Lamro (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link the discussion you are talking about? I don't see a past AFD template on the article's talk page and this AFD doesn't say "2nd nomination" in the title. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are either WP:ROUTINE, WP:VALNET, or don't have WP:SIGCOV. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in the Terminator franchise#Rev-9 – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of characters in the Terminator franchise#Rev-9 - Its fairly rare for characters that appeared in a single movie of a franchise to have enough coverage to warrant a separate article, and I am not seeing anything to indicate that this one meets the notability threshold. That said, there is a character list for the franchise, so merging to the appropriate section there is a valid WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. ~2025-39656-21 (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Korovyev

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

There is not a single sentence in this article that does not run afoul of WP:NOTPLOT, so it violates WP:What Wikipedia is not, and it is sourced entirely to the book where this character originates. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE it should be redirected to The Master and Margarita. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did your BEFORE identify the Google Scholar sources? Can you review them if you haven't and comment on whether there's enough commentary for a standalone character article? Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did check google scholar before commenting this and found a lot of mentions in plot summaries but no analysis of the character enough for independent notability. There could be something in Russian but a quick check there found lots of plot summary, which does not help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found these two sources after a quick search in Google Scholar[4][5]. This is notable, but the page requires a complete rewrite. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Polish article seems better than ru wiki, and is structuered in a reasonbly scholarly fashion, if anyone would like to translate some parts of it here (sources hopefully are reluable, I am too tired to translate cyryllic...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Master and Margarita. Per above, this may be notable, but the current article is just a plot summary. Soft delete by redirecting is best. If this is rescued now, ping me per WP:HEY and I'll gladly revise my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This is a cute page, however, seems not sufficiently noteworthy to have a standalone. I support a redirect to The Master and Margarita per Piotrus. Kvinnen (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currier Island

AfDs for this article:

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

The only coverage of the subject that I was able to find was an article in The National (Abu Dhabi) ([6]) and a few sentences in the newspaper Sud Ouest ([7] page 5). Perhaps it could be redirected to World Beach Ultimate Championships. The previous nomination in 2006 resulted in deletion. toweli (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Sports. toweli (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of links discussing this.

Kid-friendly overview of Currier Island as a fictional Ultimate nation. https://kids.kiddle.co/Currier_Island

Canadian Ultimate page describing Currier Island teams at WCBU. https://www.canadianultimate.com/en_ca/p/wcbu-currier-island-teams

BULA blog hub, including posts about Currier Island and eligibility manuals. https://beachultimate.org/blog/

Reddit post telling “The Story of Currier Island.” https://www.reddit.com/r/ultimate/comments/2xdnup/the_story_of_currier_island_the_story_of_how_a/

This Reddit linked to the blog archived below https://web.archive.org/web/20170126093241/http://www.gethorizontal.com/the-story-of-currier-island/

Feature article about Currier Island at WCBU 2015 in Dubai. https://www.thenationalnews.com/sport/have-frisbee-willing-to-play-currier-island-team-brings-global-appeal-to-world-championship-of-beach-ultimate-1.26768

India Ultimate news page including notes on Currier Island at AOBUC 2019. https://indiaultimate.org/en_in/news

BULA WCBU scores site listing Currier Island results. https://beachultimate.org/wcbuscores/

WFDF report and final standings for WCBU 2011 including Currier Island. https://wfdf.sport/2011/11/2011-world-championships-beach-ultimate/

WGGMBUCC page listing participating teams including Currier Island. https://wggmbucc.org/tournament/participating-teams/

Facebook group post mentioning Currier Island at world beach ultimate championships. https://www.facebook.com/groups/364928930277026/posts/24415637868112796/

Currier Island Players and Friends Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/currierislandwcbu2017/

Facebook recruiting post for Currier Island teams at European/Beach events. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1862475287400712/posts/2122111181437120/

Currier Island account on X (Twitter). https://x.com/CurrierIsland

Currier Island Instagram account. https://www.instagram.com/currier_island/

YouTube: Currier Island vs West Coast game (WGGMBUCC). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaPMySSKb4c

YouTube: Currier Island at WCBU 2017 opening ceremony. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6ac_RG1sBU

Below are links to various ultimate rule lists, which might include references, but I haven't reviewed them in depth.

WFDF National Team Player Eligibility Regulations (Ultimate Worlds). https://euf.efdf.org/docs/WFDF_National_Team_Player_Eligibility_Regulations_for_WFDF_Ultimate_Worlds_Events.pdf

uRules.org summary of WFDF national-team eligibility appendix. https://urules.org/appendix-d.html

WFDF Rules of Ultimate 2021–2024 Appendix (includes eligibility context). https://rules.wfdf.sport/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/WFDF-Rules-of-Ultimate-2021-2024-Appendix-v3.pdf

WFDF Rulebook Article I – General (national team definitions). https://wfdf.sport/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/WFDFRulebook_Article_I_General.pdf

EUF Ultimate eligibility rules (adapted from WFDF). https://www.ultimatefederation.eu/ultimate-eligibility-rules/

Hope this is enough :) Jazi Zilber (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@YechezkelZilber nearly all of these source are unreliable or PRIMARY sources. Most of these do not actually help with showcasing article notability independently of the overall competition, especially since the few reliable sources are just score statistics. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it is notable, I would say. And the links I provided showcased this.

"Wikipedia approved sources" are generally not a measure of reality, but a helpful technical rule for vetting sources. Those aren't the same. Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are, in fact, a measure of how we determine what should get an article, however. We have the reliable sources noticeboard for a reason, and reliable sources are needed for an article to pass the Wikipedia:GNG. Please review relevant sourcing guidelines. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edited and fixed the list above Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete presently. Recommend anyone wanting it saved look at WP:HEY or strongly consider sending to userspace to build out and up properly for Articles for Creation. It'll save you a few later headaches. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Heroic Age characters

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

The usual 99% unreferenced plot summary, 1% with refs are to the anime episides or production websites. And 1/3 of the article is off topic even (not about characters, but about the in-universe lore - the Labors section). Sigh. This can be redirected, maybe slightly merged, to Heroic Age (TV series)#Storyline. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Anime and manga, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no sourcing beyond fan sites/churnalism sites from what I can find with a quick search. Opposed to a redirect as "Heroic age" as a term is general and, without any prior knowledge of the anime's existence, I expected this to be about heroes from the Greek Heroic Age. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Heroic Age (TV series)#Storyline. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 15:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 00:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anonrfjwhuikdzz @ZDRX There is some useful content here, such as matching of voice actors to characters; and having seen the show, I can confirm the plot summary is accuarate. I recommend redirecting; as the content, after major (90%+) pruning down is usable for a character section that should be added to plot (I can create one). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Bulman (fictional character)

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

Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see anything here commenting on the character, but rather its media appearances in three TV shows. It'd be possible to rescue this if sources existed, but if not, it sounds like a redirect to the first TV show (because the original book character has a different first name) would be in order. Jclemens (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that as an ATD.4meter4 (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trantor

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

This article was recently restored from a 2019 redirect with the explanation that the "redirected page shows very little information about the topic". This article, about a fictional sci-fi planet, is fancrufty and has notability issues, and only contains primary sources (the books themselves). My restoration of the redirect was reverted with the edit summary "restoring sources" and the suggestion that the redirect destination Foundation universe#Trantor be expanded with more info on this topic before another redirect. I am laughing because the burden to improve that section is on the editor who has undone the redirect, not the rest of us at large. So I am again suggesting that the redirect to Foundation universe#Trantor be restored. The article content will be perfectly preserved for whoever decides to find some actual sources and recreate this content in some form. — TAnthony^Talk 17:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep. I am a bit of two minds here. This looks like it is a notable topic in itself. As an example, this book review alone has analyis on Trantor as bearing close similarities to New York. On the other hand it does not look great at the moment, with so much information sourced to primary sources. So I can imagine both keeping it with the goal to add such analysis as exists here and likely some trimming, or to start building up at Foundation universe#Trantor first. But I do think we should not just redirect. If this is not kept, this should be the chance to use the primary sourcing we have to reference the section at the merge target, because having no sources is worse than having primary sources. And we have the one sentence of legacy based on secondary sources, being satirized in Bill, the Galactic Hero, which should be merged over as it is. Many more could easily be found (Coruscant), but they are not present yet. Daranios (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The topic itself is probably notable, but nothing in this article is helping make that case. Unless someone is going to make an effort to improve this article or the redirect destination in the next few days, it is not appropriate to leave this article as-is. Interested editors then have all the time in the world to mine info from the diff, it's not lost.— TAnthony^Talk 17:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Foundation universe. There is one reliable secondary source, which could be a staring point to get more sources; however, that source alone is not enough to keep a separate article. All content in Wikipedia should be sourced, so a section in the Foundation universe article for Trantor can be sourced with that reference. The article should be trimmed and keep only relevant information in the section. LoЯd ۞pεth 17:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if by "one reliable secondary source" you are referring to the Greenwood Encyclopedia in the article or the one I have raised above. By now I am quite convinced of the notability of the topic of Trantor, with widely varying sources out there: Invoking the Beyond gives a counterpoint to the review cited above by comparing Trator to Tokyo and Japanese Culture. The Multicultural Matrix has a lot of plot summary but also comments on the relevance of Trantor at various places. "Asimov’s Foundation – turning a data story into an NFT artwork" looks a things from a very different angle, but gives insights on the relevance of the location of Trantor within Asimov's major work. "The Colonial Metropolis in the Work of Asimov and Clarke" sounds very promising, but I cannot access it. And then most importantly Imagining Urban Futures, starting p. 61, has a comparative look on Trantor as a megapolis, and "Trantor: the city-World" is a full academic article focussed on our topic here. I assume there's more in the big analysis works on Asimov, but for me this list is sufficient. Daranios (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foundation universe per WP:TNT. If someone wishes to improve/rewrite it before that time, I am open to changing my opinion. Seems like it could be notable, but passes the TNT tipping point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Mhatopzz: In case they would like to give their opinion here. Daranios (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have looked at the content of the article before and it showed a quite sufficent number of sources that's not a primary source, the previously removed article provided much narrative and information as well as sources compared to the redirected page, which showed very little (almost none even) information compared to other Foundation universe#Planetary systems, stars and planets topics in that particular subpage, which itself contained no more than two cited sources over more than a dozen topics, considering how important the nominated article's topic is to the Foundation series itself. However, I must assert one thing here, that is I'm not responsible neither holding any burden to expand that article, because it is not me who wanted to make a change to the article, but rather to temporarily keep the sourced information while waiting for other editors (who actually care enough to make a change) to decide what's best for this article's fate. Again I must assert that I am not the one responsible here, instead those who actually wanted to make a change to this article, because if indeed redirecting, merging, or deleting the article is necessary, then I suggest to not fully discard the information or the content inside the targeted article (see Wikipedia:Redirect#Content of the replaced article). Mhatopzz (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are exactly two non-primary sources (#18 & #19) that relate directly to the topic, both of which support the comparison to the Roman Empire. That's great, but not enough to justify an individual article. My point about restoring the redirect is, you found the content just fine, it's hidden and not lost.— TAnthony^Talk 20:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to justify to keep the article alone for a long time (as I stated before I'm restoring it temporarily to decide what's best for the sourced contents within the article instead of discarding it) while ignoring its notability. but hey, if the goal here is to create a redirect or merge the article, can't those two non-primary sources and the cited content be kept and added to the redirected page instead of blanking the entire article and left those sourced materials? I mean, two sources is already great, and it covers a quite substantial amount of content. But, if you are unable to crop that specific sources, I will voluntarily do it, and I support the idea of redirecting or merging, just as long as everyone are responsible enough to not fully discard sourced contents. Let me know what's your and other editors final decisions are. Mhatopzz (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheInevitables (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yomiko Readman

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

Starting this AfD after a bold WP:BLAR on my part, which was reverted by User:Historyday01.

This character does not appear to be independently notable. I could not find any useful sources about her with a WP:BEFORE, and, looking at the sources already cited, none of them appear to satisfy either WP:SIGCOV nor the recommendations outlined at WP:NFCHAR. Most of them are either WP:PRSOURCEs or else reviews of the series in general which only mention Yomiko in passing. A couple are listicles, and a couple others are books which, although I cannot access their full text, mostly only seem to briefly mention Yomiko.

The majority of the article is plot summary, and no real-world details about her character's development or reception is included. Even if there were any, I see no compelling reason why any such details could not be covered sufficiently at the articles about the series and the various entries in its media franchise. Such details would not necessarily show that the character deserves a standalone article. If there are any sources which prove the character to be independently notable, they should certainly be added (and I will be happy to withdraw my nomination if that is shown to be the case), but I have not found any. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:12, 26 November 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 Anime and manga. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I feel that this AfD is wrongheaded, as there could have been an effort to gather sources first, then a further determination at that time. All the issues you describe could be fixed through editing, rather than going through this process. Here is what I just added to the reception section:

Her character was received positively. Zuleika of Fandom called her a "typical glasses-wearing, book-infatuated klutz" and noted her obsession "with books," listing her among characters in other classic anime OVAs.^[1] Christopher Bolton, a Japanese and comparative literature scholar, noted that in the Read or Die OVA, her book obsession is treated as an "unhealthy preoccupation" distancing her from real life, with a key theme being her realization, gradually, that real relationships, and real people, are "more important than literature."^[2] Readman's character influenced Mei in Overwatch, at the suggestion of equipment producer Ben Zhang, and noted by animator David Gibson.^[3] Erica Victoria Espejo, a well-known anime cosplayer and author, noted she wore a cosplay of Readman to a convention, was praised for embodying "the essence" of the character, and then went on to cosplay as Readman again following this.^[4]

Otherwise, apart from a mention in Jer Alford's "Obscure O.V.A.s", I found writings about Yomiko Readman in:

You Don't Look Like a Librarian: Shattering Stereotypes and Creating Positive New Images in the Internet Age, page 52 [I cannot read this because Google Books does not let you, but I can gather this discusses Readman and her role as a librarian stereotype] [already in the article]
A page from The Publishers Weekly, Volume 253, Issues 10-17 (sadly, Google Books doesn't give me much of a preview)
Page 540 of The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917 (sadly, Google Books doesn't give me much of a preview) [The Anime Encyclopedia, 3rd Revised Edition: A Century of Japanese Animation] is in the article, but this is a different edition]
Read or Die Vol 1 Review in IGN, of which four of the five paragraphs are about Readman's character in the manga
Review on Christopher Bolton’s Interpreting Anime which talks about Readman in Bolton's book on pages 117 and 118
Knjižnice i knjižničari u popularnoj kulturi [translated as "Libraries and librarians in popular culture" (in Croatian, looks to be a thesis of some kind) talks about Readman on pages 55-58, saying, in part, on page 57, "Yomiko is an extreme example of a bibliophile and a paper craftswoman in the literal sense. She can do anything she wants with paper, including creating magical shields, weapons, etc. R.O.D. has, through films, comics, and TV series, developed her own little world that is still revered by many loyal fans today...Yomiko is described as a typical bookworm, an introverted substitute teacher who wears glasses and is obsessed with reading and collecting books. As a true bibliophile, she often spends all her money on buying various books, so much so that her entire apartment is filled to the ceiling with romance and other novels."

Otherwise, some of the ANN articles cited in the article already, like "R.O.D The Complete Blu-Ray", "Read or Die DVD", and "R.O.D.: Read or Die G.novel 4" have a big focus on her, and "The Fall 2003 Anime Preview Guide" a bit less so.

All in all, I do not disagree that page needs cleanup. It certainly does, but an AfD is no substitute for page cleanup. Historyday01 (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort to gather sources (I did find a few of these in my own search, but also missed many of them). Apart from the Fandom article, which I'm not sure is admissible, these all seem to pass muster for reliability.

However, although I think these are all good sources to keep in mind for covering the critical reception of R.O.D. in general, my own opinion on the notability of the topic is mostly unchanged. There's a handful of these I'd see as being useful to flesh out the article alongside sources that address the character of Yomiko Readman more directly, but I'm not sure those exist, and in general these look to all be using her only as either as an example (of cosplay, stereotype, or anime protagonists) without directly addressing her as the main topic, or else only cover her over the course of covering the plot of the series generally, which one would naturally have to do when she's the lead character.

I still think the article would be best off merged and/or redirected, but I'll wait and see what opinions other editors have on these sources before I comment any further. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I'm willing to personally wait to see what opinions editors have as well, but personally, I would not be opposed to merging or redirecting if other sources cannot be found, although I would prefer a weak keep at this time. Historyday01 (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Zuleika (November 22, 2018). "5 Classic Anime OVAs Worth Your Precious Time". Fandom. Archived from the original on April 19, 2025. Retrieved November 25, 2025.
^ Bolton, Christopher (2018). Interpreting Anime. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. p. 7. ISBN 9781452956848. Retrieved November 25, 2025.
^ Gibson, David (June 6, 2016). Overwatch: How A Hero is Mei'd. Archived from the original on October 13, 2023. Retrieved October 12, 2023 – via YouTube.
^ Espejo, Erica Victoria (2025). The Fangirl Diaries: Finding Community in Anime Fandom of the '90s and '00s. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland. p. 145. ISBN 9781476654904. Retrieved November 25, 2025.

Delete – Protagonist of an irrelevant anime series. Fails in WP:MILL. Svartner (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion seems unnecessarily harsh and it eliminates all the work that people have put in the article at this point. All that editing history is eliminated. This is why I tend to almost always oppose deletion. Also, the series was not "irrelevant." At the very least, a redirect as the OP proposed is a better option. I still maintain a weak keep on the proviso that good sources exist. Historyday01 (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article shouldn't be straight out deleted, I'm only saying I think it should be redirected. The series itself looks to be notable. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's my thought as well. The series certainly is notable, but I do think due to the number of years ago this was and the fact that the series isn't streaming anywhere (as far as I'm aware), that may have reduced the number of articles on Readman. That's just my guess on that part. Historyday01 (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article is very bad, yes. Most of it is fancrufty plot summary, and 3 out of 4 sources in reception are weak. However, she is mentioned on ~10 pages of the cited academic book [8], and other sources presented above suggest there is enough to prove notability of this character. The article needs a major rewrite (shorten fancrufty plot summary, expand with reliable sources analyzing her character...), but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's my thought on it as well. The page certainly needs work. I've seen other character pages like this before, so having a page like this is not unusual, unfortunately. Like always, it depends on who works on it, and how much time they put into updating it. Historyday01 (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The character is a seminal example of a fictional character with her particular "paper master" metahuman power set, predating any that I'm aware of in North American fiction, and thus is notable as an early example of such a character. As for a lack of sources, there are many sources listed on the Japanese Wikipedia page for the character, which can be used by someone who is fluently bilingual to expand the English Wikipedia's page. --Rob Kelk 23:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a page about the character, that's an article about the original light novels. I don't think any other Wikimedia project has an article specifically about Yomiko (if there is any it's not hooked up to the Wikidata item). silviaASH (inquire within) 23:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per WP:TNT. Character may be notable, but the current state of the article doesn't really demonstrate that, and it would need a full rewrite. There is an obvious WP:ATD here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Read or Die per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. The character could potentially have a separate article (though that's somewhat debatable, as the sources make this seem like a WP:NOPAGE situation to me), but this current article really can't stay in the state its in. As stated, redirecting this to the main series page, where the character is already covered, is an obvious WP:ATD for now. Rorshacma (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. It looks like the sources presented above and those present in the article are enough for notability. While the article contains a lot of fancruft, it also has reasonably well-referenced sections on background, personality, skills, and reception. There is no need to TNT them. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time

[1] Zuleika (November 22, 2018). "5 Classic Anime OVAs Worth Your Precious Time". Fandom. Archived from the original on April 19, 2025. Retrieved November 25, 2025.

[2] Bolton, Christopher (2018). Interpreting Anime. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. p. 7. ISBN 9781452956848. Retrieved November 25, 2025.

[gdc-3] Gibson, David (June 6, 2016). Overwatch: How A Hero is Mei'd. Archived from the original on October 13, 2023. Retrieved October 12, 2023 – via YouTube.

[4] Espejo, Erica Victoria (2025). The Fangirl Diaries: Finding Community in Anime Fandom of the '90s and '00s. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland. p. 145. ISBN 9781476654904. Retrieved November 25, 2025.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]