THC Science

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[edit]

Fantasy Viking[edit]

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

Essay-like article that relies on WP:SYNTH from mostly unreliable sources. The sources that are reliable are not about Fantasy Vikings, but only used to support some part or argument within the article. Some of this info can be relevant additions in Vikings, Viking Age, Viking revival or historical fantasy, if it's not already there, but Fantasy Viking fails WP:GNG. There may be justification for some kind of broader article about the reception history of Vikings or the Viking Age in popular culture, but I don't think this article can be transformed into that. Ffranc (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I once talked about the title of this article at Talk:Fantasy Viking#Move. I don't think "fantasy viking" is a good title. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, wow the sourcing in this article is a lot worse than I remember. I see why this was nominated for deletion. I took a look at earlier versions of the article to see if maybe things were better and they're not. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Vikings in popular culture. Surprisingly this title is indeed in use, e.g. in this PhD thesis. But considering some of the problematic sourcing, starting with the content which can be tracked to reliable sources and putting that to the parent topic first, and thinking about spinning it out if ever necessary later, would be my preferred course of action. Daranios (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vikings#In modern popular culture - This was likely spun out of that section of the main article, and contains essentially the same information. However, given the poor sources being used (not counting the obviously unreliable ones, the sources are generally on real Vikings, or on a very specific aspect of Viking popular culture like their inaccurate helmets), it was not ready to be split out into a separate article. I would suggest redirecting back to the relevant section of the main article, and working on improving that section to determine if a spinout article could work. If one is eventually spun back out, it definitely needs a better article title, though. Rorshacma (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magik[edit]

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

This character was recently moved to primary topic despite her notability being extremely weak. The majority of reception is from content farm-related sites such as ScreenRant that don't really distinguish between major and incredibly minor comic book characters. At least in the Video Game WikiProject, we consider Looper/CBR unreliable and ScreenRant inadmissible, leaving almost no reception that passes GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reception section may be weakly referenced, but that doesn't disqualify the whole article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG: The article is mostly plot summary when you put aside the reception. So I would say the entire article is pretty much disqualified if the reception fails notability, unless there is something I missed? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think Looper+SyFy are enough (in-depth, go beyond plot summaries). Looper is not a great source, but this depends on the particular article; that one seems relatively well written and signed by non-anon writer. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus Looper is considered an unreliable source, and a content farm at best. I wouldn't consider it a viable source for this discussion, even if it's well written. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Zxcvbnm: Were Google Books and Google Scholar included in the WP:BEFORE search? I don't yet have time look into this myself more closely, but these searches look promising, as do the individual hits of Marvel's Mutants - The X-Men Comics of Chris Claremont and Superheroines and the Epic Journey, p. 244-249. Daranios (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those appear to be talking about Magik (1983 comic book), I think, which shares the same name as the character. Would not be surprised if the comic were notable, but character wasn't. I did find an entry for her in the DK Marvel Encyclopedia, but it has no actual critical reception, raising WP:INDISCRIMINATE concerns, and a couple of SIGCOV are not yet sufficient. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm Did you look into this query? It seems promising, but I am tired today and don't have time to access paywalled sources. Ex. [1] "But his discussion of Illyana Rasputin’s ‘Magik’ saga devolves into a patchwork of radical" (and others). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. I did a brief search myself and found little, though ping me if anyone finds anything that could be considered significant. Any of the sources brought up have very little backing beyond a potential one or two. There's some coverage, but she appears to fall short of the coverage threshold. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nom once again seems triggered by prejudice against a certain medium and the idea of cleanup work. Only done a very quick Google (like the nominator *rimshot*) but there seems to be a bit more for Illyana Rasputin rather than the code-name. My X-Men is faded but IIRC she spent a good chunk of time not as a Majik, and was referred to by name an unusually high amount for the period. Possibles: - [2] [3][4] [5][6] Presumably those don't count for some nebulous reason, though. And then there's the pile of reliable publications focusing on Bronze and Copper Age comics that shock fucking horror aren't indexed on Google - Amazing Heroes, Back Issue and Wizard are right in the wheelhouse of an X-Men character. But I'm not putting more effort into a vote than someone has into the nom. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim of "triggered by prejudice" is WP:ADHOMINEM and outright false. It's unbelievable how you would accuse someone of hardly looking for the subject while then putting a list of sources featuring brief mentions and failing to expound.

Unfortunately I can't access most of these due to copyright, but from the ones I could see, it still seems trivial. Which ones have SIGCOV here, exactly? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clutch those pearls. Not putting more work into a vote than you've put into a nomination. Not re-gearing my work because you like video games more than comics. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @UtherSRG:, @Piotrus:, and @BoomboxTestarossa:. If the article is saved, a brief mentioning of Amanda Sefton operating as Magik can be listed in a section called "Other characters named Magik" in light of this recent renaming. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The book The Ages of the X-Men: Essays on the Children of the Atom in Changing Times mentions Magik on pages 169, 227, and 229. It looks like they may have a mention or two in the book The Claremont Run: Subverting Gender in the X-Men. Definitely mentions in the book The Psychology of Superheroes. Also mentions in How Superheroes Model Community: Philosophically, Communicatively, Relationally and Antiheroes: Heroes, Villains, and the Fine Line Between. You can find these results here. (I find this kind of search better than just Google Books.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So in summary we have coverage of the character as such, as well as coverage focussing on her What If? chapter (e.g. Polygon) and her own series, which also have something to say on the character even if that's not the man topic. So in total I see the notability requirement as fullfilled. Daranios (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

AfD'ed in 2007 and 2016 (both closed as keep), I closed the 2020 AfD as "delete", the article was later draftified but then moved back to main space without much change nearly 3 years later. My WP:G4 speedy nomination was declined with the note "this may yet need to face a 3rd AfD". WP:Notability per WP:GNG is still in question. This article should either be fully and officially be re-accepted in WP's D&D coverage including being listed in Template:D&D topics, or be re-deleted. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources added to the article since the last AFD, but failing that merge to Centaurs in popular culture. BOZ (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Centaurs in popular culture - The non-primary sourced material is extremely minimal, being largely either the same very obvious "Centaurs are based on mythological Centaurs" statement that was deemed insufficient in the last AFD, or a couple of sentences in what are essentially game guides. Some are literally just one-sentence mentions stating that "Centaurs are half-horse", making this look like a case of WP:REFBOMBING. There is nothing to indicate that the D&D specific version of centaurs either pass the WP:GNG, nor are any more notable than any of the other entries in the Centaurs in popular culture list that would justify making the existing entry any longer. Rorshacma (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma; once the excessive details from D&D handbooks is discounted, there is not enough coverage for a separate article. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If one accepts (and obviously many do not) that the topic is 'centaur', then the D&D sources are themselves non-trivial reliable sources independent of 'centaur' as a topic. Now, that may take a bit to wrap one's mind around, but centaur is a public domain concept, used in plenty of contemporary fiction and entertainment media. Why is what Gary Gygax & co. wrote problematic, but what Rick Riordan wrote acceptable? It is nothing more than an artifact of how the topic of 'centaur' is split up into multiple articles. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an article on centaurs in Rick Riordan's books, I would presumably vote to redirect that as well. I don't see how "D&D didn't invent centaurs" is supposed to prove "D&D handbooks are independent coverage of the topic of centaurs in D&D". Walsh90210 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the small coverage in book sources + more extensive sources in various web article like this one, which do provide commentary on their relevance. Failing that, merge to Centaurs in popular culture - there is new content now not present at the target, and I plan to add some more. Daranios (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That article is simply a summary of the information about Centaurs taken directly from Mythic Odysseys of Theros, and offers no actual commentary or analysis. It is simply a summary of the official information presented in the book. The same goes for this article, which is the only other one in the search that provides more than minor coverage - its simply summarizing the exact content from the official book, without a single bit of commentary or analysis. Rorshacma (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is yet another iteration of the prejudice against game content in mythical creatures articles. The topic of this is article 'centaur', not 'centaurs in Dungeons & Dragons' but is maintained in a separate article due to SIZE and other considerations. Merging it all (not "delete by calling it a merge and eventually deleting all of the content") to Centaur would be most appropriate, but failing that, keeping it as a separate article focusing on the game aspect of the same topic is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Centaurs get their own heading in Keith Ammann's The Monsters Know What They're Doing, which in combination with the content already in the article is good enough for me. Someone might want to add content from TMKWTD, though. BD2412 T 17:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simple gamecruft with no real reception worth noting. Wikipedia is not FANDOM, which would normally host articles like this. Centaurs in popular culture is equally as bad, so I don't support redirecting there, and I am not swayed by ScreenRant, a content farm site. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanson Brothers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article is largely unsourced original research and fancruft. A search of sourcing reveals an absence of articles on this particular plot element in the film "Slap Shot." Every single article mentions the fictional "Hanson Brothers" in the larger context of the film, and I haven't seen a single source on the "brothers" themselves. A previous AfD in 2016 resulted in a "keep," but at the time there was no evidence provided of such independent sourcing. Therefore deletion or merge to the Slap Shot article is warranted. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I appreciate the added sources, I do not believe that, taken together, they provide sufficient basis for a standalone article. The only source that fleshes out the Hansons, and provides sufficient information for a standalone article, is vintagemnhockey.com, but that can hardly be considered a reliable source per WP:SPS. What we do have is sufficient information for a separate section in Slap Shot and therefore I think Merge is the correct outcome here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Figureofnine (talk · contribs) - Would you kindly explain how you came to the conclusion that vintagemnhockey.com is a self-published source? To me, it looks like a website about the history of hockey in Minnesota. Would you also please elaborate what you think is lacking from these other sources:
I don't doubt your sincerity, however you said you did a "thorough check" between the 11th and 14th of July and didn't find even a single source. Given that you failed to pick up such mainstream sources as the New York Times, The Hockey News, and the National Hockey League, it seems that your research was not thorough at all. You dismiss the sources that have been presented, and that's fine. But as the nominator and only proponent so far, it's on you to make the case which you have not done, in my opinion. On the other hand, you have convinced me to go and watch the movie again, so high-fives all around! Buffalkill (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's a great film, just on TCM, which is how I latched on to this subject. What I see in these articles is enough for a nice perma-stub if we don't use vintagehockey, which has the appearance of yet another self-published fan website. I was hoping to see stuff in regional newspapers but turned up blank. I would have been happy to add some good profiles and articles as sources if I had found them. I used the same database to flesh out North American Hockey League (1973–1977), which is another 1970s artifact that needed more sourcing. Now, it wouldn't end the world having yet another fancruft article sourced to marginal or non-RS sources, but I think a section in Slap Shot makes more sense. And incidentally if the gods of Wikipedia were to determine that vintagehocky is an acceptable source, I would want to use it for the thinly sources Hockey League article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article from the New York Times is a pretty good source, since it talks about the Hanson Brother characters in a real-world context, rather than simply within the plot of the films. As most of the sources discussing the characters are also discussing the film, though, it could be a WP:NOPAGE situation where it would make more sense to cover them together in one article. Rorshacma (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The further sources below along with the NYT article I posted above show that there is sufficient coverage on the trio outside of their role in the movie that a Split would be justified in this case. The current article definitely needs improvement (integrating these new sources into the article, replacing the bullet points for actual prose text, etc.) but there is no longer a case for Deletion here. Rorshacma (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to withdraw the nom if there are sufficient sources. I didn't find a single one in my search on Newspapers.com, and I'm not sure what's been presented meets GNG. While it wasn't my intent to nominate this article for deletion to fix it, the fact remains that it has been sitting there in a terrible state, fancruft, for years and has been tagged for sourcing since 2012, with a further tag in February 2023. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per WP:BEFORE, there are many reliable sources available to improvement. The article needs work, but that is not grounds for deletion as per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained on the article talk page, I only nominated this for deletion after I was able to perform a thorough check using a suitable database, Newspapers.com. As you can see from the article, in the many years since this article was created, reliable sources were not provided even after it was first nominated for deletion. Even the external link that sat at the bottom of this article for many years, described as the Hansons' "official website," did nothing more than pitch Hanson merchandise. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject passes WP:GNG and I can help with addressing the article's shortcomings. WP:SIGCOV & WP:SUSTAINED includes the above-mentioned NY Times piece, write-ups on NHL.com from 2017 and 2023, a 2006 cover story and a 2023 follow-up in The Hockey News, this article from 2020, and this article from 2021. Moreover, there will undoubtedly be endless reems and reels of coverage related to the actors' many public appearances over the years. The followign exerpt is from the 2010 NY Times article cited by Rorshacma above: "They used to make around 90 appearances a year and were sponsored by Budweiser. For the last several years, they have made about 20 to 30, Hanson said. They receive 300 to 400 requests, including some from Europe, he said." Buffalkill (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Buffalkill and AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The Kip ^(contribs) 14:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient coverage demonstrated through article improvements. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see evidence of WP:NOTABILITY for these characters. It seems on the edge of whether it's enough for a stand-alone article, and I support the emerging consensus that this article can be improved, without deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional British and Irish universities[edit]

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

This subject does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of fictional locations. Another list that is WP:OR in both content and in the synthesis of "fictional X that are also Y and Z." Jontesta (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think this is an obvious delete, and there is no List of fictional universities and colleges to merge to. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland and United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no sources included in the article that cover the topic of fictional British/Irish universities as a group or set - the closest this article has are a series of joke articles from the same website. The only entry here that actually has its own article is the Unseen University, which isn't actually even in Britain or Ireland. Fails WP:LISTN, appears to be peppered throughout with WP:OR, and probably runs afoul of being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rorshacma (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of fictional universities and expand to cover the subject generally. BD2412 T 19:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of fictional universities as suggested above by BD2412T and possibly implied by LaundryPizza03. A quick search shows a number of articles on fictional universities as a group, so that would appear to pass WP:LISTN. The main problem here is that it's a non-encyclopedic WP:CROSSCAT, but as that can be solved by removing the cross-category element that seems to be the obvious solution. Robminchin (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to List of fictional universities — per BD2412 and Robminchin. I believe fictional universities as a group enjoy sufficient coverage; a move makes sense. As it stands, the current article fails WP:LISTN. GhostOfNoMeme 16:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my preference to Move. This should be at List of fictional universities. I don't agree with merging to List of fictional schools — "school" in British English does not refer to universities, so WP:COMMONALITY applies. GhostOfNoMeme 09:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move to List of fictional universities. COI: I created this list, inspired by a conversation at an Academic Archers conference where the University of Felpersham was mentioned and we wondered what other fictional (British) universities existed. I initially drafted it as "List of fictional English universities" but broadened it to UK and Ireland, because that's the area whose literature, film/tv and higher education I'm familiar with. I can see good reasons for broadening the scope to be international, but it will require some careful attention to scope and standards of list items. A column for "Country" will be needed. Entries for many non-UK&I institutions will need to be added, and the borderline of what is a university as opposed to a college will need to be defined, allowing for problems of ENGVAR. In the list at Lists of fictional locations, this list is shown as a subdivision of "List of schools", while in British English "schools" are what comes before Further Education or Higher Education (or in some cases are divisions of a university, or entities such as the London School of Economics!) The existing List of fictional schools includes some universities (and is almost entirely unsourced, except for the schools of magic).

I'm disappointed to see this list described as WP:OR, as every list item and statement is sourced. I would be sorry to see that level of care and sourcing diluted in the move to internationalise the list, but am also fearful that if it is simply moved it will be criticised as failing to represent the whole world, tagged as {{Globalise}}. Perhaps that is OK, as a nudge to editors to join in expanding its coverage. I wouldn't call it WP:INDISCRIMINATE either, as it has very clear inclusion criteria and aims for completeness. At present its title is quite clear about its scope, and it has aimed to be comprehensive within that (ie it includes every sourced fictional UK&Ireland university which has been discovered by me or other contributors, plus a couple of culturally-British extragalactic ones).

There are certainly other sources listing non-UK&I fictional universities: 21 US colleges here, 25 here (largely overlapping), 30 "fictional schools" here (mostly high schools, couple of elementary schools, but a few universities or colleges), a top ten here which includes both UK and US institutions, while this 2015 account of Borchester was to be the first of a week of "Great fictional universities" but I can't find the others. Those sources are all dominated by recent films and tv: the existing list is strong on literature, from Thomas Hardy onwards. Perhaps another column for "medium" (book/play/tv/radio/film) would be useful too.

There may well be lists of fictional universities in American (and other) novels. Some of the titles in Campus novel#Examples may yield list entries (eg I find that Pnin is set in Waindell College), and some of the sources at Campus novel#Bibliography may be fruitful. (Though the first one turns out only to be a book review, of the useful-sounding The American College Novel: an annotated bibliography). Though of course fictional universities are not confined to Campus Novels (Felpersham is from a radio series).

TLDR: To sum up: yes, by all means expand it to international coverage but with care so that it maintains its thorough sourcing and careful construction (eg sortkeys in column 1); a column for "country" and perhaps one for "medium" would be useful additions.

Sorry to be longwinded here, but I do, naturally, feel somewhat protective of this list as its creator and a major contributor. PamD 20:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of fictional schools. No need for two lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of "school" to refer to a tertiary institution is an Americanism, so this violates WP:COMMONALITY. And that's a much poorer article in any case. Non-British Isles universities on that list should be moved to this article after renaming. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Good point regarding WP:COMMONALITY. I agree with a move to List of fictional universities and a transfer of the universities from List of fictional schools. The latter article should make this separation clear. GhostOfNoMeme 11:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of fictional universities and expand. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to List of fictional universities~~ which I am pretty sure is a topic fullfilling WP:LISTN, and expand by other contries, as PamD has pointed to. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of fictional universities afterwards, to preserve what we have here as basis for an article with expanded scope which I expect fullfills WP:LISTN just fine. Daranios (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and then accommodate the changes made by PamD with generalized scope, I guess, would be fine for me as a way to go through with this. Whatever the technicalities, I believe there is a way to go to put the suggestions of the majority to preserve and adapt the content to a renamed list as suggested by a majority here into practice. That said, after another look and given the differences in educational systems, the split by country seems much less a synthesis than I originally thought, as most easily accessible English secondary sources seem to feature US-American and/or British universities. It will be interesting if some from other countries will be found in the end. Daranios (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A closer can't close a discussion as a Move. If this is your choice, please make an argument to Keep and then a Move can be discussed after this AFD is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's sort of taken as read! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify If it's going to be expanded, it should happen in the near future. Otherwise, it's too over-specific to remain there, as I don't think that particular subset of fictional universities passes WP:LISTN. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've drafted a possible new version of the main list, ready for international expansion, at User:PamD/new-unis. Two new columns, and no longer any need to explain the Britishness of the three extraterrestrial institutions. Any comments, from editors suggesting keep-and-move? PamD 22:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This keeps getting more interesting. Thanks for the draft, it looks good to me! It just needed an introduction, which I have tried to start, and some new phrasing of inclusion criterea. And if that's the way to go, one needed to solve the question how to get the histories together. Presumably drafty this list, and then replace the content by PamD's draft, which is based on the list here. Daranios (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think draftifying would be a useful step. If the closer of this AfD decides to Keep the list, then the next step would be to move it to the suggested new title, alter the wording of the lead appropriately, and amend the main list. I think the move would be uncontroversial, and it could be done immediately. My draft new version of the main table is a suggestion: I would be happy to contribute to the internationalisation of the list by pasting the revised code over the existing table.

While I don't want to be guilty of WP:OWNing this article, I am the person most familiar with its existing content and structure (and will keep an eye on it in future to maintain the standards of sortability and sourcing). PamD 10:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, whatever works to get there. As above, it's all just technicalities, I believe all keep and move !votes want to have the same end results at this point. Daranios (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice I have notified a relevant WikiProject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education#List of fictional British and Irish universities: I believe this is Appropriate notification rather than Canvassing. PamD 22:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in His Dark Materials[edit]

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

Does not have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of fictional concepts from a book series. Much of this is WP:OR in both content and in the choices of what to cover. Jontesta (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I got pinged as the article creator. It seems that a long time ago I merged a couple of articles because they were not individually notable. Perhaps some of the items here have enough 3rd party coverage to merit existence, but I'll stay out of discussion. --Tone 14:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to His Dark Materials#Setting. It might be able to be spun off into a Universe of His Dark Materials article, but currently it seems heavily loaded with plot and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I got pinged as a major contributor to the article, though truth to tell my role has been largely copyediting and 'pruning'. This list article summarises all the 'worlds' and distinct locations in the (massive) His Dark Materials two trilogies of books and a number of spin-offs. All the info is - or should be - in the coverage of each of those books, and is no more WP:OR or indiscriminate than a list of characters from a major book, TV or film series, of which we host many. WP in my opinion is highly inconsistent in its coverage of created works. Almost every plot summary of almost every film or book is, in reality, intrinsically WP:OR. Choosing what plot devices to record and how to record them, an editor makes creative judgements. Our justification to ourselves is that the "work itself is the source". According to strict interpretation of P&G, this article probably has no place on WP, but IMHO has value as collating info recorded elsewhere on the site.Pincrete (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this article needs a lot of work, I believe there is significant coverage in secondary sources to allow just that, like this Lonely Planet article, this Radio Times article, two paragraphs in Routledge Handbook of the Tourist Experience, p. 83-84, the chapter "'Lyra's Odyssey' In Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials Trilogy" in Once and Future Antiquities in Science Fiction and Fantasy, two chapters in Serialization in Literature Across Media and Markets, pages in Space and Place in Children’s Literature, 1789 to the Present (mostly but not exclusively on Oxford), and others. Now the article's topic may not be the main topic in all those source, but that's specifically not required by WP:SIGCOV. But those sources do have a lot to say on the locations, as a group and individually, plot summary, commentary on the function of the locations in the story, commentary on their realization on film, inspirations, intertextuality, etc. No objection against a renaming into Universe of His Dark Materials, or rather Multiverse of His Dark Materials, but I don't find that neccessary either. Daranios (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daranios' sources. No objection to rename if that's the consensus, and obviously a merger into #Setting is preferable to outright deletion if this is not retained as a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Teen Titans Go! characters[edit]

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

WP:OR without independent sources. Much of this is a retread of List of Teen Titans (TV series) characters and we do not need two non-notable lists. Jontesta (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Teen Titans Go!. The article in its current form has too many entries that are unnecessary, the only inline references are to the show itself, and the external links don't discuss any characters other than the main ones. Merging the most important characters to the show page (with a note about character crossover) should be fine.
The Teen Titans Go! article says Sporting a different animation style, Teen Titans Go! serves as a comedic standalone spin-off with little to no continuity to the original Teen Titans series (although some references are included as comedic fan service) or any other media in the DC Comics franchise., so a merge to List of Teen Titans (TV series) characters would excessively disrupt that article. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is a WP:GNG fail, but summarizing this at the main article is a fine WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Third Watch characters[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:OR with no indication of notability. Not enough coverage by reliable sources according to WP:BEFORE. Jontesta (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batcopter[edit]

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

Far cry from cult imaginery of Batmobile or even Batplane, this is poorly referenced fancruft. Batman occasionally used a helicopter - this could be mentioned in Batman#Technology or in the Batplane article. No need for a stand-alone list of trivia in which comics and other media this happened (WP:GNG fail, with WP:V being an issue as well as much content here is unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology per nom. There's not much in the way of coverage for the Batcopter, and does not meet the notability guideline. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology. This is mostly uncited trivia. It's sad to see that Neelix's obsessive trolling is still disrupting Wikipedia nearly a decade after the fact of his ousting. Softlavender (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology would indeed be the best choice here. TH1980 (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology. Does not meet the notability guideline. Jontesta (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology per nom.

TheBritinator (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology per the above discussion Master rollo (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman#Technology - Much like the Batboat, this article is not really on a single topic, but just a variety of unrelated vehicles that various incarnations of Batman have used. As far as I can tell from this article, only one of these was ever even referred to as a "Batcopter". As stated in the nom, the fact that Batman has occasionally used a helicopter can simply be mentioned in the Technology section of the main Batman article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the technology section at Batman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and per the suggestion of the other who contributed to this discussion. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Rayne[edit]

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

Redirect undone. Zero indication of notability. No coverage by any reliable sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this article for deletion has been compared to nazism. That's Godwin's law for you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I saw that you nominated me for the deletion of my post about a video game character named Anton Rayne. We cannot have coverage of too many sources when the character is only text-based. I did an undone redirect since I find it unfair that the character cannot have a wiki. The source used was mostly from the game's codex (which you can read in-game this is just an online version) and their developers so it is a reliable source, site from Torpor Games themselves(https://codex.torporgames.com/). All information on the character is really what games tell you about him and nothing added more. I really find it unfair since Wikipedia is supposed to be a dictionary of everything not just important characters. This character is a community loved one as are all others. I saw the complaints and comparisons to nazism. I of course dont justify it, it is probably a "Suzerain" fan like me.

I am looking foward to a response, Andrew(AntonRad) AntonRad (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community reception towards a character is generally irrelevant on Wikipedia, as we are not a fandom site. Video game characters (or anything, for that matter) generally only get articles if there is significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I understand if you might be frustrated or find it unfair that your article was nominated for deletion, but this has been the widely accepted standard for a long time. See WP:GNG. λ NegativeMP1 16:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I agree we need to look at the characters objectively and writing Anton like that needs info mostly from the games codex which i did, but i struggle to understand that Anton Rayne was mentioned in suzerain video game wiki and its not ok to write a short article about the games protagonist?

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Suzerain (video game): Redirect to the game, I don't find critical discussion of the character in any media. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

I appreciate you concern about redirection and the characters media popularity, but this was made just for those who did read Suzerain video game article to click on Anton Rayne and find out about him with more information about the games protagonist, but thanks for the comment

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the nominator. The article creator seems to completely misunderstand what an average article for a video game character is supposed to be, and that Wikipedia is not a fandom site. Seeing the nomination get compared to Nazism made my day, though. λ NegativeMP1 16:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

I hope i didnt do too bad to be honest. I didnt want it to be seen as a fandom page, as i wanted it to be mostly from games codex. Anton Rayne is mentioned in Suzerain wiki page and i thought it would be good to create one for the protagonist.

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Nonsense article. No indication of notability at all. Mostly copied from https://suzerain.fandom.com/wiki/Anton_Rayne; the rest was obviously AI-generated. C F A 💬 16:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

thank you for the comment. You are not right in the first part its not mostly copied from https://suzerain.fandom.com/wiki/Anton_Rayne since that is not that much of a reliable source, side from the characters codex, whats mostly copied from is the characters codex in game which can be found on Torpors website! As for this the "rest was obviously AI-generated" AI doesnt even know to write about Suzerain i think, but i ll give it to ya the section for Antons policies really looks AI.

Best, Andrew. AntonRad (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nomination fails BEFORE; a check of Google News shows a piece in PC Gamer with an in-depth review of the game explaining this character. There are other hits, not an overwhelming number and some of them look iffy, but clearly not zero easy-to-find RS coverage. We know from Commander Shepard that it's possible to write an article about the role a player assumes in an RPG game, so really, the proper assertion here should be that there's not enough to cover about Rayne as a separate character article, aside from the game, not that no coverage exists. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

i appreciate your honesty and i do agree to you to some point. Since it Anton Rayne is mentioned in suzerain wiki article i think it was ok to make one about him. There's not enough to cover about Rayne as a separate character article, which is true to be fair but that's exactly why i wrote it from the players perspective, since player does everything Anton does in Suzerain.

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Suzerain (video game) - What sources there are specifically on this character are not enough to justify a split from the main topic of the game. The source found by Jclemens can be added to the main game article, which needs to have its reception section beefed up, but nothing from this current article should be merged, as it is devoid of any reliable, secondary sources actually supporting any of it. Rorshacma (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

i somewhat agree but we shouldn't split the topic of the game just at least make it so this article or a brief article is present at suzerain(video-game)wiki page.

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The article itself smacks of ChatGPT, and fails WP:NOT even before we get to whether it's notable (which it probably isn't). Please "be better" when contributing articles (and no response is necessary to this, I will not be swayed either way). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, i know you said not to respond but this was my first article every i will try to do better

Best, Andrew AntonRad (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batboat[edit]

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

This is WP:OR of a list of watercraft from batman comics. Even when you hone in on a discrete topic, it's sourced to angelfire. It has no independent reliable sources. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for any of these boats / submarines / scooters / etc. Jontesta (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or ~~Merge reliably independently cited content into another article if relevant~~ Redirect to Batman#Technology as suggested below. Most of this article is uncited, and most of it is trivia, and most of the cited content is not cited to independent WP:RS. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC); edited 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Video games, and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I agree that the article is mostly uncited, and that article mainly mentions its appearances. I feel the article should be taken back to draftspace, where it can be further researched-on and improved. It is notable, as anyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is. Right now, it definitely doesn't deserve mainspace. MK at your service. 12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"[A]nyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is" does NOT mean the topic is notable, particularly not per Wikipedia's notability standards for article subjects. Nor is the quoted statement true, since the boat certainly does not occur in every episode or every game, etc. Softlavender (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Unlike the article on, say, the Batmobile, this article is not really about a single, coherent topic, and is just a list of a bunch of unrelated watercraft that various incarnations of Batman happened to use, relying almost entirely on non-reliable sources. If anyone suggests a viable Redirect target, I am fine with that as an ATD, but a Merge anywhere would be out of the question due to the poor quality of the sources being used. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology -I had already stated in my previous comment that I was fine with Redirecting if someone identified a good target, but just to help make it clearer, I'm striking my Delete suggestion to an explicit Redirect recommendation instead. Rorshacma (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~Delete~~ - per nom, is largely unsourced fancruft. Not particularly supportive of drafting, as I don't particularly think this is o r of those things more time will solve... Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revising stance. I still don't believe its a notable subject, but it is a plausible search term, and can easily be mentioned at Batman#Technology. I don't see any "size" issues because much of the contents of this article should not be mentioned there. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While the article is poorly written, the subject appears notable and received significant coverage in several independent books: Batman's Arsenal, Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight, Slashfilm(?) I think people underestimate how entrenched Batman is in popular culture. Due to the problems being seemingly WP:SURMOUNTABLE, refusal to improve an article is not a viable deletion argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm those two books seem to be plot summary to me. Additionally, the second book appears to be a primary source, while the first book appears to be an unauthorized encyclopedia that is not actually analyzing anything, and only giving plot details or summary information. The final source appears to be development info that doesn't contribute to showing independent notability, and is better off covered at Batman Forever. None of these show any independent coverage from the source. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "unauthorized" has no bearing on whether a source can be used - we are not a fan wiki. DK books are not primary; they are published by Dorling Kindersley, a known encyclopedia publisher. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, then, on misconstruing the books. I could've sworn at one point that "unauthorized" books were unable to be used, and I misread the publisher on the second. Either way, they're still only plot details and summaries of what it is with no real significant commentary. The sources don't really do much to show significant impact, especially since encyclopedias of various subjects are pretty standard fare in numerous big fandoms and often only give summary over commentary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do admit that, at least in this case, there doesn't seem to be commentary on the Batboat that would make it pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but it is clear that the WP:BEFORE here has come up wanting and needs more work. Hence, "weak keep" until someone decides to actually do an exhaustive search and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no external commentary on the impact or influence of the Batboat's existence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they aren't independent sources covering the Batboat in a context that would actually illustrate independent notability, then they aren't worth bringing up in the nomination and certainly wouldn't count in a BEFORE as being enough to salvage the article. If the sources you're using as an example of "the BEFORE not being done" are sources typically ignored in a BEFORE for not being significant coverage, then I'm not sure what your argument really is here. I can't speak on the nominator's BEFORE without them clarifying (To which I ask @Jontesta to clarify just in case) but if the target article isn't notable then it shouldn't be kept solely on the basis of a Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "sources must exist" argument. I have proven the article is notable beyond a doubt, whether it passes WP:NOT is still unclear, but the current deletion rationale has been totally negated at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How have your sources in any way proven notability? Even in the case of the nom's rationale being faulty, there's been nothing asserted by those sources in the way of actual real-world relevancy beyond having plot summary in two Batman encyclopedias, which cover all manner of Batman-related content, regardless of notability, and dev info for specific movies. There's no notability asserted that is independent of its parent franchise in a manner that requires a split from any other article. I don't believe the nom is wrong either, since, per a search, the only mentions of the Batboat I could was this and references to unrelated boats named after the Batboat that don't show notability in the slightest, and I can find nothing in Books or Scholar that isn't just more Batman encyclopedias or unrelated objects named Batboat. Batman's Batboat literally has nothing in the way of significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's a page of text about the development and construction of the '66 series' Batboat in Batman: A Celebration of the Classic TV Series, a non-fiction non-primary reference that I added to the article. Toughpigs (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While helpful and good information, there's still not much showing a significant real world notability, given that this is one source discussing one film's production, which can easily be shifted to the main article for the film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the technology section at Batman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- PRESERVE isn't an actual notability rationale. You need a rationale for preserving for it to be a valid stance. Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - My technology section at Batman claim is that it would be the only other place to mention the Batboat as some of Batman's other vehicles are already listed in that section. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology, where a reference to the Batboat exists referencing it as a variation of the Batmobile. There's no need for this non-notable subject to have a separate article, especially since there is no significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support this option if the article is not to be outright deleted. Softlavender (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that "technology of..." articles are almost always cruft, but I'd support this being merged if the tech section was split into a Technology of Batman article. It appears that a large amount of his gadgets and tech are rather notable, with at least a whole book having been written about them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it's certainly possible (Since at the bare minimum it meets LISTN with Batarang, Batsuit, Batmobile, Bat-Signal, and Batman's utility belt having articles, though I'm admittedly on the notability of some o these) but it will need more than the one book source to hold it up as an entire subject to justify the split off Batman, especially since most of these have articles already have them Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the book, I found an article here from reliable source GamesRadar+, and an article on tech and various superheroes that includes a lot of coverage for Batman, focusing on how he is a "powerless" superhero who mostly relies on tech. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's sourcing. Merging to Batman#Technology sounds like a recipe for SIZE issues, but is certainly a better ATD than outright deletion. Creating Technology of Batman as a WP:SS parent for the various articles seems like the superior way forward. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman#Technology as an alternative to deletion. If Technology of Batman is ever created with a mention of Batboat, it can be then redirected there. --Mika1h (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman#Technology for now, then merge the contents of the article to Technology of Batman when it is created. Galaxybeing (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet. Opinion is divided, primarily between Keep and Redirect/Merge to Batman#Technology.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Batman#Technology. This term can be mentioned there, but stand-alone GNG is too weak for an article. WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Batman#Technology. The article isn't about a coherent topic, and doesn't have enough evidence of notability. There is a logical redirect target that covers Batman's gadgets in a more encyclopedic way. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions[edit]

no articles proposed for deletion at this time

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Fictional elements[edit]

Fantasy Viking[edit]

Magik[edit]

Centaur (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Hanson Brothers[edit]

List of fictional British and Irish universities[edit]

Locations in His Dark Materials[edit]

List of Teen Titans Go! characters[edit]

List of Third Watch characters[edit]

Batcopter[edit]

Anton Rayne[edit]

Batboat[edit]

Fictional element Proposed deletions[edit]