Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements

Points of interest related to Fiction on Wikipedia: Category – Deletions

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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:

1. 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.
2. 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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements/archive 2

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

Related deletion sorting

• Television
• Film
• Anime and manga
• Comics and animation
• Literature
• Video games
• Science fiction and fantasy

Bendy (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article does not assert notability and is cited to unreliable sources. Attempts were made to redirect it, but they were reverted under the logic that it was featured on a different language Wikipedia, which is not a valid argument to keep an article. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pure WP:FANCRUFT. λ NegativeMP1 21:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bendy and the Ink Machine#Plot. ApexParagon (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - viable search term, but I can't find anything that establishes independent notability. If its somehow kept, the whole article would need a good WP:TNT. (Its strangely organized and written, its "Controversy" section both violates WP:CSECTION and has no discernable "controversy", etc etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grasshopper (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A minor comic book character who has literally no SIGCOV, only being referenced in Valnet sources. There is no possible notability I can find for this character, as a search yields nothing else. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: G in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Great Lakes Avengers, as all of them are members of that group, per the page, or List of Marvel Comics characters: G. As only one of them has lasted more than one issue, SIGCOV seems impossible to achieve. Definitely don't merge with a list of DC characters as they're from Marvel. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That typo has been corrected. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies if I seemed passive-aggressive; just wanted to be explicit. Thanks for the fix. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Great Lakes Avengers - Group of joke characters that only appeared in a handful of actual issues, and has zero significant coverage in reliable sources that I can find. Merging does not seem necessary as the characters' extremely minimal plot is already fully covered throughout the main GLA article, so a simple Redirect would suffice. Rorshacma (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Genuinely surprised by the lack of coverage that exists for this character. I was hoping to improve his article, as its current Reception is primarily plucking smaller quotes and trivial mentions from larger episode reviews, but a search through News, Books, and Scholar yielded very little. All I found was plot summary of the character's appearances and trivial, scattered mentions that don't amount to SIGCOV. The few hits I found that were even close to significant- and indeed the only coverage in the current article that is- are about the Yeti, creations of the Intelligence who somehow have more actual tangible discussion than the Intelligence. This character just lacks any form of significant coverage to justify a whole article, and per NOPAGE, I'd support a redirect or merge to the Yeti article, as they are the subject most closely associated with the Intelligence and thus the best place to put information regarding the Intelligence's character. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is some reception in the article; there is some more praising Ian McKellen's performance as Great Intelligence in news articles; and more commentary in such sources in relation to other individual appearances. There is something strewn throughout Steven Moffat’s Doctor Who 2012-2013, mostly plot summary but also some commentary (positive comparison with Fenric (Doctor Who), and specifically talking about how Moffat's version has decidedly little linkage to the yeti!); half a page at The Science of Doctor Who which includes commentary on the possible inspiration; and two pages as "The Psychic Papers: The Great Intelligence" in Who Is The Doctor 2: The Unofficial Guide to Doctor Who, again mostly plot summary, but also with commentary. So I did not see a lot of commentary in any one place, but enough of commentary in total to support a full article in the vein of WP:WHYN. And yes, all of this could be partitioned among the individual relevant episodes, the Yeti article and List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens#Great Intelligence. I just see no benefit in such a splitting up with regard to WP:NOPAGE. To the contrary WP:NOTPAPER seems to apply to me here. If push comes to shove I would prefer a merge to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens#Great Intelligence to deletion in the vein of WP:AtD, but prefer to keep the article. Daranios (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure of the reliability of the publisher of Steven Moffat’s Doctor Who 2012-2013, especially given it's advertised as being written "by fans" on a publisher whose website apparently hasn't been updated consistently since 2015 and has a non-functioning FAQ. Regardless, even if we take it as reliable, I'd argue it's largely moreso discussing the Yeti than the Intelligence. The cited statements describe the Yeti for being silly antagonists and theorize if it tied into why they didn't return with the Intelligence, while giving comparatively little depth to the Intelligence; just saying the Intelligence was similar to another antagonist without much further depth isn't what I'd call significant analysis.

  Science is largely a summary of the Yeti more than it is the Intelligence, and its brief musings over origins seem more fit for developmental information, not Reception, which is needed here. The Psychic Papers has some pretty solid coverage on both halves, and it's a pretty good find, but the source largely discusses the Yeti and Intelligence in tandem, which doesn't debunk the NOPAGE criteria outlined in my nom.

  What I'm largely failing to see, and why I made this nomination, is a lack of actual distinct SIGCOV of the Intelligence separate from the Yeti. If the Yeti and Intelligence are discussed entirely together, then NOPAGE very strongly applies given the shared overlap of both of their appearances, roles, and reception. In all the sources above, the Yeti take up a lot of coverage on the Intelligence, and arguably dwarf the Intelligence in comparative coverage despite being described in the same context. The shared coverage indicates to me that anyone looking for either of the pair would likely be looking for coverage on both of them, something better accomplished in one article where all the information can be contained together, than in two separate articles that are intrinsically tied to each other and require the other article to wholly understand. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fred VII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No reliable sources. All the so-called references are GI Joe publications. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per lack of independent sources. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Domdaniel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage for this fictional place. SL93 (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE is hard here, because domdaniel is also a word meaning "a den of inquiry",[1]. There's also a WP:NOTDIC issue here where the article just extracts WP:OR of various times the word has been used. It seems to have been coined in One Thousand and One Nights, so there could be a valid WP:ATD as a search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of mythological places as an WP:Alternative to deletion. This is a relevant place in two works of fiction, which is referenced in a number of younger works of fiction as can be seen in the number of primary and secondary sources both present in the article and especially those appearing in the WP:BEFORE search. This role and connectivity in my view goes beyond a dictionary definition, so this should have some place on Wikipedia. Presence in Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable indicates that as well. There's a rather extensive discussion in this paper on the Thalaba version. Oriental influences in the English Literature of the early nineteenth century, p. 25, discusses the Arabian Nights - Thalaba connection. Britain and the Muslim World, p. 132 has an interesting one-sentence-comparison to Hogwarts. The secondary sources I've seen in a brief search are short on the Domdaniel beyond the specific work of Thalaba, so I don't think a stand-alone article is warranted so far, but deletion would be a loss. Daranios (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Daranios (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : The article is severely unsourced, but there are many sources about the subject in Google Books and on the web.

Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Largely not sourced, entirely plot summary. Character does not pass WP:GNG. From a search, lot of casting news, but that cannot sustain an article on a fictional character. Can redirect to the series or character article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. The evidence doesn't really support notability, per WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Criminal Minds at an alternative to deletion per nom. ✗plicit 23:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with the nominator that the article could use more sources and be restructured to not appear as a plot summary. However, that warrants editing and adding to the article, not deleting it. Spencer Reid is a notable figure, and he is frequently the topic of news articles. Here's just one example: https://www.today.com/popculture/dont-hold-your-breath-waiting-reid-seaver-hookup-criminal-minds-wbna41896074 DocZach (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a cast member interview and is not secondary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no articles proposed for deletion at this time