Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements

Human-hunting

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

I propose merging to Blood sport per WP:MERGESHORT, due to the fact that this is simply a list of examples. A section can be made about blood sport involving humans, including gladiator combat and hunting for humans. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Crime, History, and Popular culture. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Kiyomi Takada

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

Takada is not notable enough for her own article. She appears in less than ten episodes, and has less screen time/plot significance than several other characters who lack articles of their own such as Near and Mikami. AxioChrono (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Anime and manga, and Japan. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:05, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Death Note characters#Associates of Kira. YeetV4 (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Pointy ears

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

Seems to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE violating WP:TRIVIA article that simply contains examples of anywhere pointed ears appear in nature and fiction. A large chunk of the article talks about their use in fantasy elves, but there is already an article on elves. The article doesn't really explain why the topic of pointed ears passes WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:04, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, Film, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:04, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I can see someone has inserted a brief paragraph about 'pointy ears' into a random section of the Ears article, but I don't see evidence the subject is notable enough even for a redirect. Sionk (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep. I started this in 2014. There is a ton of references to the "pointy ears" trope in fantastika (fantasy, but not only - think Star Trek Vulcans, Avatar's Na'vi) and manga/anime in GS. I also don't see the nom having done any BEFORE either, and the mentions in academic literature are numerous (dozens). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
@Piotrus: You wanna share some that can be used to improve the article? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:53, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Plenty of reliable sources are already cited in the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
- The article is very much just a list of things with pointed ears. If I saw any evidence at all of 'pointy ears' being a serious subject of study, I might change my vote. Sionk (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
  @Sionk https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00266-021-02505-y looks promising, SIGCOV-wise - although I am unable to access it right now (I am on holidays). For medical topics, this and this might be of use. A bit more searching also suggests another alt name not currently used in the article which yields more sources, "satyr ear" - see this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
  Agree that first and second sources have a decent chance of being sigcov, but this one may be too general to qualify. I didn't have a look at it in detail though, so I could be wrong. The fourth source is likely fine sigcov-wise too. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 20:53, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
  
  PS. I am falling asleep, so I'll let someone else look into additional alt names mentioned in that last source: "pixie, goblin, elfin, or gnome ear," _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related AfD discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep, pointy ears are one of the most recognizable physical characteristics of aliens in film or television science fiction, in fantasy literature, anime, and in myths and national legends. Thanks to Piotrus for creating this well-sourced article which easily meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
See WP:VAGUEWAVE unless you can specify which sources make the article make GNG. Right now, it seems to be comprised entirely of WP:TRIVIAL mentions in larger sources. You also did not note why combining real-world animals with pointed ears, with fantasy elves, is appropriate for an encyclopedia when there is no demonstrated relation between the two. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
Two essays, nothing to do with policy or guidelines but more or less editorials. Real world and fantasy combinations is a textual concern, not a deletion point. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
The concern is WP:SYNTH, and that your argument does not address policy-based concerns, either. It's mostly just WP:ITSIMPORTANT. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
And yet, I think that Randy Kryn's argument can be considered policy-based: they clearly indicate the page is well sourced in their opinion and that the topic thus meets GNG in their view. Also note that the creator and Randy Kryn themselves have added content since the nomination, which is a good way to address your concerns. I would tend to agree with them and think the coverage on the page is not trivial but addresses the topic directly. Therefore Keep, per WP:GNG. ~2026-38843-54 (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. ~2026-38843-54 (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
The changes have not remedied the essential problem that it is an indiscriminate list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
That's a very Wikipedia:POINTY (:D) comment. How is it indiscriminate if it meets the notability guideline as having been addressed in RS? It's not even a list-article, btw. Yes, it has a real world part and a fiction part, but as Randy Kryn indicated, feel free to discuss a WP:SPLIT/WP:OKFORK. Still, you will note that there is no guideline that says that a topic cannot be addressed under two different aspects in the same article; it's actually quite common (I) history and description of a topic/phenomenom in the real world; II) importance of the depiction of the phenomenon in human works). It is, rather, a very encyclopaedic way to cover a topic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. So that I now consider all of your concerns addressed and/or undue. ~2026-38843-54 (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
As for Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE, the article does not meet any of the cases that the page lists and, on the contrary, informations are "put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". ~2026-38843-54 (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
Question Do any sources treat this as a single topic? That is, do sources treat pointy ears in animals, humans, and folklore/fiction as the same topic? If not, this scope is fundamentally WP:SYNTH. TompaDompa (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
Nowhere in the page is there anything that is an original synthesis such as the section you are referring us to presents. ("Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by that source.") Quite the opposite; you are confusing different things. The scope here includes 3 aspects ("The article should contain a readable summary of everything within the scope, given due weight, based on what reliable sources say.") and that is, again, a quite common approach in encyclopaediae and on WP for that matter. Again, if you want to create 3 articles (say Pointy ears in animals, Pointy ears in humans and Pointy ears in fiction) and merge the content from this one, kept as Wikipedia:SETINDEX, in the said articles, feel free to discuss that on the TP of the article. I for one, do not think it is necessary. ~2026-38843-54 (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
I'll take that as a "no". This is by no stretch of the imagination a WP:Set index article, i.e. a stand-alone list of a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name. The scope, then, is something that Wikipedia editors came up with themselves rather than a topic that is covered by the sources. If sources cover, say, pointy ears in humans as an overarching topic, you can't just add content about pointy ears in animals and assert that it's all part of the same broader topic of pointy ears without the sources doing likewise. This should not be necessary to explain.
If you think that this is three aspects of a single notable topic, you need to show that the combined topic is notable (and otherwise appropriate for a stand-alone Wikipedia article), and if you think it is three different topics that are best covered together per WP:PAGEDECIDE, you need to show that all three are. So which is it? TompaDompa (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Pyro (Marvel Comics)

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

I propose merging to List of Marvel Comics characters: P because there's no indication of notability for any incarnation of this character, and a WP:BEFORE turned up nothing to boot. Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Most of the article is either WP:PRIMARY, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:TRIVIA, or otherwise doesn't contribute to notability. As I've said at several other AFDs before, this would be better suited for sites like Fandom than here. A WP:BEFORE search didn't turn up much besides this interview about Deadpool & Wolverine, which would probably not contribute to notability anyway.

Unrelated - I saw "Pyro" first before realizing it was a Marvel character, and believed for a second that the Team Fortress 2 Pyro had an article, haha, especially given that articles for the Heavy and Medic exist. Wishful thinking, as he/she/it(?) is my favorite class in that game... In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 13:59, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Brotherhood of Mutants per WP:MERGEREASON. Generally I oppose merges to the list as it's equally bad, but that target seems like a better and more pertinent one (assuming it's even notable itself, anyway). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep. I'm honestly surprised this character has been selected for deletion, I don't think that this character article is poor enough to support it being merged.

- Has appeared in 14 Marvel handbooks (primary source, but shows this character probably is in theory notable enough for his own article)

- Potential sources:

-- https://www.cbr.com/x-men-pyro-most-dangerous-member-marauders/

-- https://www.slashfilm.com/1562100/pyro-x-men-marvel-character-history/

- https://screenrant.com/xmen-pyro-hero-villain-krakoa-marvel-comics/

- https://comicbook.com/comics/news/x-men-brotherhood-of-evil-mutants-members-ranked-power/

Also there is a good argument to be made that Pyro's Fox character should be merged within this article, similar to the discussion I had regarding Quicksilver's.

I can personally try to add much more analysis on the Fox character, and if I do so I think this would definitely be worthy of a keep. ModlordD (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

All of those are WP:VALNET sources, see the link for the problem with that. The use of such sources constantly plagues fictional characters and topics, but in a word they are SEO bait and/or AI slop that are not good indicators of notability and solely created to bring views to what are popular topics the actual press is ignoring. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:03, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Slashfilm and ComicBook.com are not Valnet outlets, just to be clear on those two. Unless the point of the statement was more that their output has become more like Valnet since their respective sales. -2pou (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Comicbook.com is still considered a source on par with Valnet as far as proof of notability goes. It is essentially no different despite not actually being Valnet owned. I admit that Slashfilm does seem to be an RS that would count towards significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Harpy (Iris Phelios)

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

An incredibly minor fictional character. From what I can gather, she only ever appeared in a single, two-issue story. The only source in the article is a primary source, and searches are turning up zero coverage of this character in any kind of reliable source, making this a complete and utter failure of the WP:GNG. Given the subject's complete non-notability and lack of coverage in secondary sources, it should be deleted, and not be preserved via a character list merge or anything of the sort. Rorshacma (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Rorshacma (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete WP:GNG is failed by the character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:41, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: H in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. There is more than one Harpy in DC Comics should the outcome of this AFD end on the merge decision. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment - There is not a single secondary source in the article and you did not provide any here. WP:PRESERVE is not a magic word that one can cite in an AFD in order to completely ignore the fact that an article completely fails the WP:GNG and WP:RELIABLESOURCES. You really need to provide some kind of genuine rationale or show that there is significant coverage in reliable sources to justify voting to Keep or Merge an article in this state. Rorshacma (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Mr. Weatherbee

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

I propose redirecting to List of Archie Comics characters because this character does not seem notable. The entry has just plot summary and list of appearances, there is no development/reception/analysis. This seems like pure WP:FANCRUFT and my BEFORE yielded nothing to help. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect all the sources are occurrences in the comics, there's no indication that the character is notable outside of the fiction. There are a handful of references in some academic papers but nothing that stands out as notable. HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2026 (UTC) (edit: sorry, wrote Delete but meant Redirect)

Ann O'Brien

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

Redirect to Monkeyman and O'Brien: Ann O'Brien has no notable appearances outside of the handful of M&O stories (and, notably, the other title character does not have his own article), failing WP:GNG as an individual character; after nearly 20 years, the article is almost orphaned with Monkeyman and O'Brien and Arthur Adams (comics) (the series' creator) being the only mainspace articles linking here. "Publication history" and "Fictional character biography" sections of this article largely WP:OVERLAP in scope and content with the "Publication history" section of the primary Monkeyman and O'Brien article. Mashed Potate Jones (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. Mashed Potate Jones (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Marlo Chandler

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

Fails WP:GNG without reliable secondary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment Any reason why this Popverse article should not be relevant? Daranios (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Popverse doesn't appear to be a WP:RS - its writers seem to be freelance contributors and the editorial policy is "if we have an error, you email us and we fix it later" rather than having dedicated editors. It seems more like a glorified blog. One piece of SIGCOV is still insufficient for GNG even if the site was determined to be reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on Popverse. I did not see a mention either way in the usual reliable sources lists. Daranios (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters (C) as WP:Alternative to deletion. The character does appear in secondary sources here and there, but it seems not in a way to establish stand-alone notability. Daranios (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: C in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and also per the suggestion of @Daranios:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Harpy (DC Comics mythical)

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

Fails WP:GNG without reliable secondary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge to List of Black Canary characters#Enemies and villains. Fictional characters' notability for a standalone article is heavily influenced by the article's reception section, and there is none here. I was not able to find anything about this character after a WP:BEFORE Google search either. The article is entirely sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources, and I quite honestly believe this would be better suited for a Fandom wiki than here. You could make the argument that some aspects of the biography are WP:FANCRUFT too. Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 13:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge to List of Black Canary characters#Foes of lesser renown (e.g. the creators, which are not present at the target yet). Does no look to have enough coverage for a stand-alone article but does appear in secondary sources in a very limited way, so WP:ATD-M suggests to merge to a list. Daranios (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete - Incredibly minor character that has zero non-primary sources in the article. I am also really not finding anything about this character in reliable sources in searches either. Not every obscure comic character needs to be jammed into random character lists, particularly ones that are this obscure and non-notable. I was also initially baffled by the bizarre name of the article, but I guess its to distinguish this obscure character from two other equally non-notable DC characters. Rorshacma (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: H in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. There is more than one Harpy in DC Comics should the outcome of this AFD end on the merge decision. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Baby Jane Hudson

AfDs for this article:

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

I propose redirecting to What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (novel) because it has been almost completely unsourced for many years, consists mostly of a plot summary, and in general does not meet NCHAR. Two previous attempts by others to make this a redirect have been reverted, so I am sending it here. in solidarity, Chloe (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Film. in solidarity, Chloe (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment: a return to AfD for a fresh discussion was probably overdue, not only because of the repeated (and repeatedly-contested) BLARs (once that happens enough times, the intended next step has long been AfD), but because the first nomination that ended as "keep" (a traditional deletion discussion that nonetheless was based on similar issues as now) was in 2010, a time of lower inclusion standards. (No opinion on whether this meets 2026 standards.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
This is an interesting topic, because right now it looks like the novel is set up as the Summary Style parent of both films. I haven't seen that before, but there's no real reason it couldn't work. I wonder if that is driving any of the opposition? Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect per nom. I restored the redirect and was reverted. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 09:01, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The article itself is in pretty rough shape, but the character itself is likely notable. She's frequently mentioned (character, not solely the film) in articles about aging in horror and she's one of the icons of the psycho-biddy film genre (the film and character actually launched the genre). This one says that a scholar named Jodi Brooks wrote an analysis of aging female film characters that specifically highlighted the character of Baby Jane. I also found little snippets like this that also point towards sourcing being available. This likely just needs work. Other than that, a look in JSTOR brings up coverage in this and this. These are ones where the preview made it seem like they were writing specifically about the character, not just about the film. You're going to have mention of the film to some degree, as you can never 100% separate the character and movie. I've seen stuff that is specifically about the character, though, when I was researching the psycho-biddy genre. Offhand I'm leaning towards recommending that the article remain so people can try to improve it, as redirects tend to discourage article creation/improvement and the character does appear to be independently notable. I'll try to come in and find more sourcing and improve it as well, but offhand it's going to be a busy Monday for me. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Google Scholar is currently erroring out for me, so if it's working for anyone else please take a look there! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
This chapter specifically looks at the appearance of Bette Davis's character in the film. I also found the article "Baby Jane Grew Up: The Dramatic Intersection of Age with Disability", which was put out through the Canadian Review of American Studies. There are others that look to cover the character as well. As said above, any article is going to cover the film to some extent. These seem to be more specifically about the character (and to an extent also the sister character with sourcing like this), however.

It also looks like we have at least five different depictions of the character: the iconic Bette Davis performance, the book version, the TV version, and apparently there was a musical adaptation. There's also a 2010 film "Baby Jane?" that looks to be more of a nod to the film version than the book. I know that sometimes multiple versions of a character can make a spinoff article somewhat of a necessity in order to cover the various different incarnations and differences. I'll ask on the film WP to see if anyone wants to try working on the article. Baby Jane was at one point kind of an icon in queer cinema and drag, so the LGBT WP should also probably be informed. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like there was another stage production. I've created a quick section on the depictions. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:01, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

And one effect of you finding that additional material is that even if this is found to be a redirect, it should be treated as a merge, as that information on stage adaptations is not currently to be found in the article on the novel they adapt. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

KEEP: Valid article on infamous film character. References can be improved with time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaniac86 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep as the sources and commentary provided by ReaderofthePack shows clear GNG that it meets NCHARACTER and WP:BASIC. The article can be improved but deletion is not cleanup. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Types of fiction with multiple endings

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

There is a notable topic somewhere here (one of the articles I plan on writing one day is route (gaming), see also barely acceptable Happy ending, note there is no bad end while bad ending redirects to the nominated mess). Anyway, fiction with multiple ending is likely a valid topic, but what we have here is a WP:TNTable mess (see also WP:INDISCRIMINATE, MOS:TRIVIA). It's a poorly referenced list with very arbitrarily chosen examples of this type of fiction. Considering that this is a very common trope in video games, setting aside gamebooks, the list may be simply not reasonable. In either case, what we have here has next to no value (all prose is unreferenced WP:OR, most examples are unreferenced...). If this is deleted, I'd ask the deleting admin to userfy it for me - maybe something from this will be useful for the article I'd like to one day create. Oh, and good ending should likely be retargeted to happy ending. PS. After writing this I noticed we also have Alternate ending, which, frankly, is little better, but we should discuss it in its own AfD a little later. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, Film, Video games, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete Feels like there is a very heavy dose of WP:SYNTH here. Nonlinear narrative can probably be expanded with a full explanation of multiple endings in fiction. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:33, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete/merge This seems duplicative of Alternate ending. It's not the same as nonlinear narrative. Reywas92^Talk 15:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom - There could be a potential article on a similar subject, but this article is just a load of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH along with random lists of examples with no inclusion criteria or sources to indicate why they are particularly notable examples of the concept, Rorshacma (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete: per nom. There is essentially no elaboration save for the video game section. Entries seem arbitrary and are unsourced. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete For reasons already listed Episteme Aletheia (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

William Monk

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

Completely unsourced rundown of a fictional protagonist that could be summed up in a sentence or two at Anne Perry. 162 etc. (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Works of art are their own sources. Otherwise we would have very few Plot sections, for instance. For good or ill, that's how it works. As to notability, don't know if there's any guideline for how many books, by how legit of a publisher, with how many sales, etc. is suggested for a character to have their own article, but I didn't see one cited, so I suppose it's a matter of opinion. There is a fair-sized list of works given. Maybe a merge would be OK -- six of one I guess -- but I'm not seeing how removing all or most of this material would benefit readers searching on the string "William Monk". Herostratus (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The quasi-entirety of the article could likely be deleted per WP:V. "Works of art are their own sources" is not supported by the guideline at WP:GNG. 162 etc. (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

It's supported by common practice -- very very common practice. Common practice is a de facto rule even if its not written down, and rules are supposed to just codify common practice. We're not entirely bound to written rules.

If it wasn't very common practice, we would have (for instance) very few "Track listing" sections of albums, because few reviews or other good sources list the tracks of albums, yet the section is near-universal for album articles. And if you tried to delete it for lack of sources, you'd be reverted and get in trouble if you persisted. The source is "I'm holding the album right in front of me" and if the reader wants to verify, the procedure is to get ahold a copy of the album and see for herself (or, actually, go to Discogs which we can't trust but readers do).

Same goes for the "Plot" section of most books and movies. These are near-universal and expected and if you don't believe me try deleting some. The source is "I read/saw it myself" and the verification procedure is to go read the book or see the movie. (And if there's a review with the plot given but only the one, you'd have to plagiarize that source.) And the few "Plot" sections that were sourced would be much shorter (for which I say yay, but that is not the community consensus apparently, which is what matters).

Weird, but obviously the community has decided that we'd rather have track listings and plot sections than follow our usual verification rules. Whether that's a good idea or not I don't know, but the community says that it is, and that's what matters.

If you do a CENT RfC and get that changed (and good luck with that), then we can talk (altho our rules are supposed to codify accepted best practice and not what a couple dozen editors decide, so not really legit, but it'd be accepted). Herostratus (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect/Merge to Anne Perry - Pieces of fiction can be used as sources to provide verification on plot elements, but not for establishing notability and passing the WP:GNG. Searches bring up a handful of reviews on some of the books in the series, but not any significant coverage of the fictional character himself. Rorshacma (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Right, that's a different subject than the WP:V question. So let's see. here is a long article about Monk. It's not reliable but we've established that books don't need sources, we're looking for notability here. But there are lots of reliable sources, such as obituaries. The don't say much about Monk, but usually a bit more than "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" which the GNG sets as a floor. There are various reviews of individual books, and then here we have some more extensive international coverage ("The William Monk series is a collection of historical mystery novels by Anne Perry set in Victorian England. The books follow the investigations of William Monk, a former police officer who lost his memory following an accident and must work to rebuild his life. Despite his memory loss, Monk is a skilled investigator..."). here is NPR with a couple full sentences describing Monk. It's enough.

That said, what I'm trying to put paid to is deletion. Merge would be OK. As long as the info is retained. Perry's article is long already, but if you prefer fewer articles and longer one (I don't, but whatever), it'd be reasonable. Herostratus (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Note that merging this to Anne Perry is exactly what I proposed in the nomination. 162 etc. (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Robin Wood (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

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

Taking to AfD in hopes of establishing a consensus on notability. There has been some back and forth over whether this article should simply be a redirect to the series over the past week or so, so it's worth having the discussion out at this point. Not making a !vote either way at the moment. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment one VALNET source counts for one RS, there are a bunch of potential RS on Google Scholar, often looking at Wood and his mom as rare black people in the Buffyverse, but nothing that really jumps out at me as a detailed treatise on Wood as a character. I could be wrong, and there's a lot more to look into than what I've minimally done. This is surprising, since Buffy is ridiculously over-analyzed by academics compared to pretty much any other media franchise. Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given allusion to an ongoing debate over redirect, not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Medic (Team Fortress 2)

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

I propose redirecting to Team Fortress 2 because while I would really love to see a series of articles discussing TF2's cast, they're realistically some of the most well known characters on the internet, individual articles just don't quite work in the case of some like the Medic.

Most of the sourcing here is listicles, and when you look deeper under the hood there's no commentary to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. In fact, a few like GamesRadar+'s tend to veer more into satire than a serious look at the character for the purposes of wikipedia.

The strongest sources I was able to find from a WP:BEFORE were the cited "Finding Queerness in Gaming" paper as seen here on Google Books, and an article discussing player mindset towards the Medic role on Rock Paper Shogun.

I'd *like* to be wrong here, but I'm just not seeing the sources materialize. I am seeing good sourcing for an overall list, but that's a separate matter. Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I will perform a source review later to ensure I got everything right. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirect. I concur with Kung Fu Man's findings here. There is a lack of sources specifically about the TF2 medic.

Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa: According to WP:SIGCOV, the topic of an article specifically does not need to be the main topic of a source in order for it to count towards significant coverage. Daranios (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

You are right. My wording was imprecise. There is a lack of sources which cover "the topic directly and in detail". Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep: after perusing the sources, I believe there is enough significant coverage by reliable sources to warrant an article. Below is my review of GNG-compliant or at least questionable sources:

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table prepared by User:Howardcorn33
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Dille, Ed (1997). The Online Gaming Starter Kit. Ventana Communications Group. ISBN 978-1-56604-747-0.		Dille is a games journalist and author of several strategy guides. The book is published by Ventana Communications Group, who in its staff list in the book includes an "editorial operations manager", "proofreader", and a "technical reviewer". The front matter states "The author and publisher of this book have used their best efforts in preparing the book and the programs contained in it. These efforts include the development, research, and testing of the theories and programs to determine their effectiveness."	The book contains two paragraphs discussing the TFC Combat Medic.	? Unknown
Lenhardt, Heinrich; Austinat, Roland (May 2007). "Team Fortress 2: Wie aus dem Bilderbuch". PC Action (in German). No. 135. Fürth: Computec. pp. 42–46.	While the article contains a section where they interview the developers, most of it is independent coverage and commentary.	Computec-published news and magazines are all listed as reliable at WP:VGRS. With a standard editorial board, PC Action does not appear to be different.	Article provides a brief overview of the Medic (along with the other classes), then spends two paragraphs commenting on the Medic itself.	✔ Yes
Lindgren, Sofia; Gate, Nora; Eladhari, Mirjam Palosaari (2025), "Finding Queerness in Gaming: How Players See LGBTQ+ Themes in Non-queer Games", in Murray, John T.; Reyes, María Cecilia (eds.), Interactive Storytelling, vol. 15468, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, pp. 100–115, doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78450-7_6, ISBN 978-3-031-78449-1, retrieved June 21, 2026		Published by Springer Nature	Discusses the character of the Medic as well as how he is viewed among some TF2 fans.	✔ Yes
Smith, Ed (June 7, 2024). "Team Fortress 2 Medic says he wishes he could "heal" the game". PCGamesN. Retrieved June 26, 2026.		Per WP:VGRS	Mostly about the Medic's voice actor asking the developers to improve the game	? Unknown
Hillier, Brenna (November 22, 2013). "TF2 Two Cities Update includes major Medic overhaul". VG247. Retrieved June 26, 2026.		Per WP:VGRS	Article is about an update to the Medic in MvM	✔ Yes
Birnbaum, Ian (November 22, 2013). "Team Fortress 2 "Rottenburg" update completes two-part announcement, gives Medic new powers". PC Gamer. Retrieved June 26, 2026.		Per WP:VGRS	Article is about an update to the Medic in MvM	✔ Yes
Goldstein, Hilary (May 23, 2007). "Team Fortress 2: Class Warfare". IGN. Retrieved June 27, 2026.	Contains statements by Valve, as well as original commentary by IGN	Per WP:IGN	Two paragraphs of coverage by IGN	? Unknown
Smith, Charlie; Howell, Peter; Stevens, Brett; Navarro, Martina (January 1, 2025). "Expert Video Game Domain Knowledge and Decision Making: Applying the Critical Decision Method to Team Fortress 2 Players". Journal of Electronic Gaming and Esports. 3 (1). doi:10.1123/jege.2024-0047. ISSN 2836-3523.		Peer reviewed journal	Contains two paragraphs of critical commentary on the Medic	? Unknown
van Ryn, Luke; Apperley, Thomas; Clemens, Justin (October 2, 2018). "Avatar economies: affective investment from game to platform". New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia. 24 (4): 291–306. doi:10.1080/13614568.2019.1572790. ISSN 1361-4568.		Peer-reviewed journal	Contains one paragraph of critical commentary on the Medic, possibly sigcov but I'm not sure.	? Unknown
Gillen, Kieron (April 17, 2008). "Team Fortress 2: Unlocking... Pandora's Box?". Rock Paper Shotgun. Retrieved June 29, 2026.		Per WP:VGRS	Discusses an update about the Medic, new weapons, and some other commentary about the class	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Nagata, Tyler (April 17, 2008). "Major Medic Makeover". GamesRadar+. Retrieved June 29, 2026.	Per WP:VGRS	Discusses an update about the Medic including the new weapons	✔ Yes
Aurelio, Azriel (May 18, 2020). "Team Fortress 2: 10 Weapons That You Should Own". GameRant. Archived from the original on August 23, 2024. Retrieved June 22, 2026.	Situational per WP:VGRS	One item on the list is about a specific Medic weapon	? Unknown
Ocampo, Jason (April 16, 2008). "Team Fortress 2 Goldrush Hands-On". IGN. Retrieved June 27, 2026.	Per WP:IGN	Discusses the new update to the Medic, including new weapons and achievements	✔ Yes
Breckon, Nick (April 16, 2008). "Team Fortress 2 Goldrush and Unlockable Weapon Hands-on Impressions". Shacknews. Retrieved June 27, 2026.	Per WP:VGRS	Discusses the new update to the Medic, including new weapons and includes original commentary about it	✔ Yes
Aurelio, Azriel (May 23, 2020). "Team Fortress 2: 5 Ways Solider Is The Best Class In The Game (& 5 It's Medic)". GameRant. Retrieved June 27, 2026.	Situational per WP:VGRS	5 points of the list are original commentary about the Medic class	? Unknown
Gillen, Kieron (September 20, 2007). "Go Team! Part Two: The Medic". Rock Paper Shotgun. Retrieved June 27, 2026.	Per WP:VGRS	Article is a whole review about the Medic class	✔ Yes
Polhamus, Blaine (July 31, 2023). "Best TF2 Characters, Ranked". Dot Esports. Retrieved June 22, 2026.	Per WP:VGRS	The Medic is an entry there obviously, but is also discussed in the Heavy's entry.	? Unknown
Natividad, Sid (April 13, 2022). "8 Iconic Combat Medics You Would Not Want as Your Doctor". Game Rant. Retrieved June 27, 2026.	Situational per WP:VGRS	The Medic is an entry there.	? Unknown
Houghton, David (February 5, 2013). "Gaming's most magnificently murderous medical practitioners". GamesRadar+. Retrieved June 27, 2026.	per WP:VGRS	The Medic is an entry there.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I believe enough sources are present in the article which justify its inclusion. I also deny the claim that most of the sourcing are listicles. Of the 40 citations, only 5 could be called listicles. The GamesRadar listicle is of course light-hearted (TF2 characters are comedic), but does contain accurate commentary of how the Medic class is portrayed in the game. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Well a major problem here is the use of Valnet, or really the fact that it's 3 whole articles for that, and they're lists. List entries really need to say something meaningful to work, and preferably in a wider scope than "best character in [GAME]". A lot of the game update information also doesn't contribute to WP:GNG; it's generally regarded as routine unless there's some broader thought or analysis of the subject outside the scope of the game. Fundamentally when writing articles on a fictional character, they need to address them as a fictional character, and gameplay within that scope as less of a "best in the game" and more "how does it change how people perceive them?" In the latter end, that's why the RPS article works.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The article counts 45 citations, among them 3 articles for Valnet sources which are each used once and for non-contentious claims. The majority of the article does not derive from them so it is not necessary to dwell on them so much. The two other list-based articles are not by Game Rant and by sources deemed RS by VGRS. Any sources of questionable reliability are used to supplement the article and do not form the core of the work. If we exclude the sources by your other criteria, then we still have the list article by GamesRadar, the review by RPS, the PC Action article, the PC Gamer Medic guide, the Lindgren et al. paper, and the 2008 IGN article. The Smith et al. and van Ryn et al., especially the former, papers also contain useful albeit brief analysis of the character. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:15, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I have now added another source, which I hope improves my case. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirect Unfortunately, I have to agree with Kung Fu Man here, most of the sources aren't SIGCOV and I'd never have made an article with sourcing that tenuous. This is a straightforward WP:REFBOMBing situation. While it does have some SIGCOV, it's not enough to give it a meaty amount of reception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Since when do most of the sources have to meet SIGCOV? I was of the impression that it was acceptable for three or so to meet this criteria. (I hope you will forgive me if this comes off as bludgeoning.) ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there are even that many that meet SIGCOV. Many are just short paragraphs in listicles and don't indicate the character is notable. While Medic does undoubtedly have SOME SIGCOV, there isn't enough to support a standalone page (as opposed to, say, a character list entry). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: if one more editor supports the redirection of the article, regardless of any contrary voices, I will personally copy the content back to my sandbox, strike out all of my opposing comments in this AfD, and offer to convert to a redirect immediately if allowed by policy. I will not resubmit the article on the Medic again, but may use the content for a different project on the wiki. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 23:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
- After further consideration, I have realized this is a bad decision which will only impede fruitful discussion on the matter. In any case, I will no longer comment on this AfD due to my already excessive comments. I wish everyone here the best. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep Even discounting Valnet sources we already have a non-stubby article (albeit with room for improvement with regard to reception and analysis), so WP:WHYN is fullfilled in the first place. Serious secondary sources have been presented which are not fully used yet, so WP:ARTN applies. So this is a notable topic. Merging everything relevant minus the Valnet sources (which are fine as supplementary info) to the game's article would not be very suitable. But comparing to what already is there now, a lot for valid information would be lost in a pure redirect, and that would be a disservice to the interested reader, hurting rather than improving the project. Daranios (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep I agree with the source assessment above, and as such I believe this topic meets WP:GNG, with significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources. Skyshiftertalk 18:03, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep I find the source analysis very permissive in places and consider this a fringe case. I suspect that WP:SIGCOV is weaker than claimed in some areas, but in terms of the spirit of WP:GNG there are ample reliable sources that describe the character, its development background, contributions to gameplay and commentary on how it fits into the play dynamics of TF2. There seems to be enduring differences on where the bar is for character notability articles; if the bar is genuinely the need for in-depth reception, this is present but not strong, but otherwise this article adequately covers the main aspects of the subject in a way that adds value beyond the primary article. VRXCES (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion is evidence for why clearer guidelines need to be set for VG character articles. WP:THREE is a user essay and has no PAG weight whatsoever (even if it is a valid bar articles should meet). If we follow WP:GNG however, many more less notable characters become viable for articles. I've only been editing for just over a year and despite the fantastic editors that contribute to this topic area, it is a confusing mess. 11WB (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
I agree the need for broader consensus on project standards for character article notability is sorely needed, whilst also agreeing with the below comment that the kind of coverage that generally discusses characters tends not to be the best. VRXCES (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

A big problem lies in the definition of WP:SIGCOV I feel. In the past, listicles were considered just fine, until they started overloading things. Ultimately how a character ranks on any given list is meaningless; there's no real guideline there, nothing that really defines what importance that ranking may give usually (like what does it matter if the character ranks 14th or 15th out of every Street Fighter character for example). What does matter is what that entry says about the subject, and I've always held it should be a tangible thought or observation. A big reason we shifted away from list entries and ranking content is in part due to how Pokemon used to be on here, but years after that how editors like Niemti would take an everything not nailed down" approach and suddenly we had stuff like a list of breasts in DoA from GameSpy being treated as a viable source.

Ultimately, notability is supposed to indicate to the reader why a subject is important to know about separate of the parent topic, why in an encyclopedic manner they matter. Like for example Valnet aside this doesn't really illustrate much beyond the scope of gameplay within TF2 and slips more into WP:GAMEGUIDE, while you have stuff like this that's not saying anything at all. I'm a strong believer of "if you're going to cite it, cite what it's saying" and if you can't, question what the validity of the source is for your subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

A new page that explains all of this would be extremely beneficial. Laying out how many sources are enough, in addition to what constitutes significant coverage. Listicles, Valnet articles, other marginal sources and the normal SPS' like blogs obviously wouldn't count. There are hundreds upon hundreds of video game characters, with many, many more in the process of being researched and created. I'm not going to bother naming editors, but I can name at least ten that author these articles on a regular basis. Would there be any interest in opening a spin-off Wikipedia Video game characters WikiProject? I think it would have a high chance of being accepted by the WP:COUNCIL if done right. 11WB (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

This AfD definitely isn't the place to workshop an idea. If there is interest, my talk page or Discord (currently inactive but I can jump on there) would be acceptable locations. I'll spend some time coming up with a proposal and post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games later today or over the weekend. It's reassuring that there is at least some agreement around this issue. (This isn't a new thing by any means.) 11WB (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Specific considerations like source quality aside, I would not consider If we follow WP:GNG however, many more less notable characters become viable for articles. a bad thing which somehow needed to be remedied. The more the merrier. Daranios (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Eh, I both agree and disagree, @Daranios. It would mean every Pokémon species ends up with an article, and many of those would undoubtedly be of very poor quality. 11WB (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Didn't mean for this to become a meta-discussion. I've opened a discussion on the VG project talk page. That is definitely a better place to discuss this without taking up an ongoing AfD. 11WB (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Team Fortress 2. The Springer Book seems like a strong hit, but I would not consider RPS a major piece of SIGCOV given how overall unprofessional and unjournalistic the piece is. I know we consider RPS a reliable source, but that article is just... not it, frankly, and is less so serious analysis and moreso just the author, to put it in blunt terms, shitposting. Unless there's another big source I'm missing I am not seeing enough here for a full article separate from TF2. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:14, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Team Fortress 2 per the rationales of Pokelego and Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa. There just really isn't much said here about the character to warrant an article on its own that can't just be mentioned elsewhere. Captain Galaxy 16:01, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Charles McNider

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

Like many other similar articles, it's just plot summaries for a character who wouldn't pass a WP:GNG and the point of the split is just to acknowledge that Doctor Midnite is a legacy mantle, which can be summed up. I usually go for merges but the information about him is already summed up on the Doctor Mid-Nite page. Him being Starman is not relevant enough to create a seperate page of him. CosmicMordecai (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related AfD discussions. CosmicMordecai (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep or merge with Doctor Mid-Nite in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:47, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Mister Terrific (Terry Sloane)

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

Merge with Mister Terrific because on his own, Terry himself is not notable enough to warrant a seperation. He fails WP:GNG and Michael Holt's character has triple the amount of appearances and relevance. It seems the only reason he has his own page is just to make it clear "Mister Terrific" is a legacy mantle, which can already be summed upon the page itself. He should get a decent amount of coverage somewhere on the "Mister Terrific" page but a merge would benefit the page by no longer making it a redundant fork. CosmicMordecai (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related AfD discussions. CosmicMordecai (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:05, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep or merge with Mister Terrific in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:44, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Wizard (DC Comics)

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

The page itself is just a plot summary and appearances with no known analysis, reception, etc. Not to mention his name is more well known and associated with the Wizard Shazam, a major supporting character. My proposal is delete but what to do with the information can be debated. CosmicMordecai (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related AfD discussions. CosmicMordecai (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge to List of DC Comics characters: W as an alternative to deletion. -- Fiction Fanatic III (talk) 0:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: W in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:39, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Buttbanger Monster

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

This does not seem notable. A major red flag is that neither the creator of this character nor the magazine it appears in have their own articles; if they are not considered notable enough, surely this Buttbanger character is not notable enough on its own either. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

* Delete Are you kidding or what? Hopeless. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

* Comment There is a tr.wikipedia article about this topic, but it is scarcely any more detailed. The only real difference is that it also has a picture. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even a little more participation would help close this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:41, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment Just in case anyone is curious about what this character actually looks like, here is a panel featuring him (NSFW) that I was able to track down. Don't say you weren't warned. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2026 (UTC) The translation buttbanger

Redirect - Based on my analysis of sources, this particular character is not notable, although the artist Cengiz Üstün is, and the magazine (for posterity, that would be L-Manyak) is as well. I've created an article for the artist. I would support a redirect to that page. - Embyarby (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Godzilla the Ride: Great Clash

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

I propose merging to Godzilla (franchise) because of lack of WP:SIGCOV and WP:FAN. Ever since the article's publication there's been no improvements, from anyone or the publisher, who has recently been blocked indef. This is one of many 4D theme parks rides related to Godzilla and none of them have significant coverage to warrant independent notability for an article. Looking at the sources cited, a few have dead links, this is the best it's gonna get. Perhaps it's more prudent to merge it with the franchise article, which already briefly touches on the theme park rides. Armegon (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Visual arts. Armegon (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Suggest alternative merge to Seibu-en, the amusement park where this is a ride. Jahaza (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
I would support a merge but per my comment here, I agree with Jaheza re target. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge to whatever target – per nom FaviFake (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:41, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Godzilla the Ride: Giant Monsters Ultimate Battle

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

I propose merging to Godzilla (franchise) because lack of WP:SIGCOV and WP:FAN. It's been a while since the article was published and there's been no improvements from the user that published it (who was recently blocked indef) or from anyone else. The real reason? Lack of significant coverage to warrant independent notability for an article. This is one of many 4D theme parks rides related to Godzilla, all of them fail SIGCOV and don't really warrant their own articles. The Godzilla (franchise) briefly touches on these theme parks already, so its best to merge this article with that one. Armegon (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Visual arts. Armegon (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment. Wouldn't Seibu-en be a better target (the park this is located in)? I support a merge overall, but I think the target may merit further consideration. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Sure! I don't mind which article is settled on as long as a merge moves forward. Armegon (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Merge to whatever target – per nom FaviFake (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:34, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge I feel like just merging the two ride film pages together into a singular Godzilla the Ride page would make the most sense. Wouldn't surprise me if they end up commissioning another ride film in the future. FigmentJedi (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge To Seibuen Amusement Park. This page lacks the significant independent coverage needed for a standalone article under WP:GNG. While well written it would be better placed as a section within the park's article. Staticspector (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Mister Terrific (Michael Holt)

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

I propose merging to Mister Terrific because Holt is the most popular and signficant Mister Terrific; the merge isn't just to put him there but to make him the primary focus with some of Terry. Terry Sloane's character wouldn't pass WP:GNG and the only reason it is seperate is just to make the page a WP:CONTENTFORK when it's not necessary. Like Cyborg Superman and Spectre, the page would benefit from it being simplified and consolidated and be less redundant. CosmicMordecai (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

- EDIT: Just changed the intended link.CosmicMordecai (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Shellwood (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep or merge with Mister Terrific in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 05:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see some of the AFD regulars' opinions on this, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 18:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements

Fictional elements

Human-hunting

Kiyomi Takada

Pointy ears

Pyro (Marvel Comics)

Harpy (Iris Phelios)

Mr. Weatherbee

Ann O'Brien

Marlo Chandler

Harpy (DC Comics mythical)

Baby Jane Hudson

Types of fiction with multiple endings

William Monk

Robin Wood (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

Medic (Team Fortress 2)

Charles McNider

Mister Terrific (Terry Sloane)

Wizard (DC Comics)

Buttbanger Monster

Godzilla the Ride: Great Clash

Godzilla the Ride: Giant Monsters Ultimate Battle

Mister Terrific (Michael Holt)

Fictional element Proposed deletions

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks

Related Articles

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00266-021-02505-y

this interview about Deadpool & Wolverine

"Baby Jane Grew Up: The Dramatic Intersection of Age with Disability"