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.

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

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

List of Transformers comics characters[edit]

List of Transformers comics characters (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)

FANCRUFT list that doesn't include a single source indicating notability of these characters, let alone indicating a necessity for having a whole list focusing on them; in contrast to a similar page for the film characters. Most sections consist solely of brief summaries of these comic-exclusive characters, if they include any summaries at all. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 20:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• You forgot to tell the creator of the page that you nominated it. That would be User:JIP who made the page back in 17:32, 9 April 2005‎. Dream Focus 22:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment https://www.cbr.com/best-comic-transformers-ranked/ that gives coverage to ten of them found only in the comics. Any reviews for this comics or notable arcs would've mentioned some notable characters such as Rung. Dream Focus 02:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of these, none are non-Transformer characters, and only five appear in the Marvel Comics titles in the first place. However, the source could be of some use at the main article about the Marvel Comics title. JIP | Talk 08:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haytham Kenway[edit]

Haytham Kenway (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)

GAR isn't the right place to judge notability, according to most people. So, starting with WP:BEFORE, the character doesn't have any WP:SIGCOV. We're going to do source analysis now, which is in the reception section. First we got a PC gamer source with zero mention of character/game review, G4t7 dead source, [1] [2] Zero mentions about Haytham, GamesRadar+ has a short trivia content, IGN listicle with trivia content, another IGN's listicle, listicle with a short content, dualshockers' listicle with trivia content, Gamepro's listicle, Gamerevolution's listicle with short content, just a short interview, Comicbook source isn't reception at all, Heavy source contains only trivia quote content, while the last popmatters source is a bit useful, but with short content about the character. Overall, the article still fails WP:GNG; and has no SIGCOV at all. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:43, 15 June 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 Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose. The article was nominated for deletion on similar grounds a few years ago, which was dismissed. Nothing has changed since then. Also, the argument that there is no significant coverage is baseless. The article has over 40 sources, you choose to focus on the reception section, ignoring all the others. Also, I don’t see how listicles indicate a lack of notability.

DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're gonna include everything; not sure how these 3 sources with very short content, interview and another trivia-like content at dev info would help WP:GNG. This is not like other fictional characters; when there are a lot of reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DasallmächtigeJ Could you link us to that AfD? It's not on Kenway's talk page for some reason. In any case, consensus can change, so a renomination is valid. Additionally, Reception tends to be the biggest bulk of proving an article's notability. Usually, listicles tend to provide very little to Reception. While there are plenty of exceptions, the ones here seem to be very weak overall, from a glance. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'keep - I think this just about meets the criteria. I'd agree there isn't three articles that only talk about the subject, but there's an awful lot that at least talk about them. this game radar article talks about how the character feels a bit like a red herring, this Kotaku article talks about them in terms of a game they aren't in and realistically, this interview is about as in-depth as you can get about a character. I think given them, and the other articles cited, the article does a good job showing that this minor character is indeed notable. The GA status, or lack of it, has nothing to do with this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interview counts as a primary source, and thus does not count towards GNG nor SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well, if it was an interview with the game's publisher, I'd probably agree. I don't agree that a voice actor being specifically interviewed by a third party would be primary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters. Every source here is trivial to some degree, and there's a distinct lack of strong sourcing to anchor the article around. Ping me if more sources come up but I'm not seeing anything that's close to meeting the threshold needed to split off here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May the odds be ever in your favor[edit]

May the odds be ever in your favor (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)

There appears to be no WP:SIGCOV. Of the 10 sources:

• 1 is the original book with the phrase (WP:PRIMARY)
• 2 link to a non-reliable site designed to promote the phrase
• 1 just mentions the phrase
• the rest are somewhat OK-ish sources that do not actually even mention the phrase (I have simply searched them, so a mention or two could have escaped my attention) Викидим (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Викидим (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/merge anything reliably sourced that turns up to the main Hunger Games article. While the phrase itself doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG, it's common enough that somebody might search for it here. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Hunger Games: I could not find any significant coverage, and none of the material in the article is suitable for merging. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh, current sources 6 and 7 probably belong in a cultural impact section. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Once we zoom out and look at The Hunger Games, and not just at the phrase, there is indeed a large cultural impact. It is therefore documented in a score of research articles (see doi:10.3138/jrpc.25.3.372 and [3] as very different examples showing the breadth of material available from the researchers), so journalism from daily newspapers is not needed as a source at all. Викидим (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge selectively to The Hunger Games. There's not enough here for a spinout article on the phrase itself, at least not yet. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Hunger Games. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per all. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG but a selective merge could preserve what is in reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Hunger Games per others. Notable in that context, but not for a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wish Way[edit]

Wish Way (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)

This object does not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It does not cite any sources and I could not find SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a minor plot point; the article is only sourced (implicitly) to the Oz books themselves. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Completely unsourced article on extremely minor fictional element. Searches turned up nearly nothing on the fictional concept, and the article name would not serve as a particularly useful Redirect anywhere. Rorshacma (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moominvalley[edit]

Moominvalley (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)

This location fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Much of this is unsourced and original research. I also reviewed the corresponding Finnish article and it has insufficient reliable secondary sources to generate SIGCOV. Sources do not say much more than this being the home of the Moomins. Jontesta (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:NEXIST. According to sources, at least in Europe, Moominvalley is about as iconic as Narnia rather than mere fancruft. There is even a museum based on it. I have found SIGCOV in 3 book sources so far, Children's Literature Comes of Age, the Oxford Encyclopedia of Children's Literature, and Literary Wonderlands, so it already passes GNG and I am sure many more such sources exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The Swedish Wikipedia has another book, which according to the title might be about the universe as a whole or the location: Westin, Boel (1988). Familjen i dalen: Tove Janssons muminvärld. Stockholm: Bonnier. ISBN 91-0-047460-6. Geschichte (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zxcvbnm's sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 PDC-E[edit]

2013 PDC-E (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)

Could not find SIGCOV for this object. This fails our notability guidelines. Jontesta (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'd expect there to be a Planetary Defense Conference article that this could be merged to. Is the conference itself not notable? SevenSpheres (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good idea. A quick Google search shows the conference to be held in every odd numbered year. Last year was Vienna; next year Cape Town. Each seems to be reported by the United Nations and by some other reliable source. We could start by simply renaming the existing notional asteroid article to Planetary Defense Conference, then generalizing the first paragraph and adding bullet points or perhaps even sections about later editions. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tilbury Town[edit]

Tilbury Town (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)

This does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There is not much that the sources say about this location. I cannot even find it mentioned in articles about the author's fiction. This doesn't have enough sources for a viable article. Jontesta (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Edwin Arlington Robinson - I am finding some discussion about the town, but its largely in relation to the poet himself and how it was basically a slightly fictionalized version of his hometown. This seems like a WP:NOPAGE situation where it would be best discussed in the main article on the poet and his work rather than split out as a separate page. Rorshacma (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lerappa[edit]

Lerappa (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)

Does not meet our notability guidelines. What few sources exist fall under the category of WP:NOTNEWS, and even then, is more related to American Apparel's controversies than it is about their short-lived virtual store. Jontesta (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to American Apparel, "History" or "Branding and advertising" section. There's a couple of passing mentions and an interview in reliable sources ([4], [5], [6]), so it warrants a mention in the American Apparel article but not its own article. --Mika1h (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jirahs[edit]

Jirahs (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)

Fails notability guidelines. Tried to do a WP:BEFORE search, but found zero sigcov. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:00, 12 June 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 Television. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Ultraman or a to-be-created villains/characters article where individually NN fictional elements like this can be curated appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gomora (kaiju)[edit]

Gomora (kaiju) (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)

Fails notability guidelines. Tried to do a WP:BEFORE search, but found zero sigcov. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:59, 12 June 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 Television. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden Pearce[edit]

Aiden Pearce (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)

Unfortunately, after doing WP:BEFORE; I don't see any SIGCOV for this character at all and it mostly relies on game reviews at reception. Detailed issue has been shared at the article's talk page already by other user. I'll suggest it by merging/redirecting it into Watch Dogs (video game). 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:46, 11 June 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 Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment have you tried merging this into a Characters of Watch Dogs article? Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Watch Dogs (video game) exist. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  An article for the game itself existing doesn't disqualify the idea of a characters list. Now whether enough coverage for the other characters exists or not is a different story. λ NegativeMP1 15:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This wouldn't be a bad idea, but looking at the article of the first game, it looks like Watch_Dogs characters (main or side) are not particularly beloved by critics. I can't even find any specific characters mentioned in that GA outside of its uncited plot section, which really suggests to me that characters of this franchise are not subject to much analysis. I have not done a dive for sources though; if you can find any sources specifically about Watch_Dogs characters, that would be interesting. It seems like a difficult project either way. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There is news sources showing wider coverage, some of which have been provided on the talk page and are in the process of being incorporated into the article. This is by no means the least notable of it's kind so a deletion discussion so soon seems like a rash decision. This can be, at worst, made into a characters of Watch Dogs article like Jclemens has already suggested.

TheBritinator (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who brought those sources to the talk page, and those aren't WP:SIGCOV, but I understand that you're still quite new to WP:VG's notability. This is not like other fictional characters; when there are reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. Not seeing any significant coverage here, and the article is primarily sourced entirely to reviews. Not showing independent notability from the subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – If we disregard GameRant for Notability determinitation (which I believe we should), the only reliable source focused specifically on the character listed here is The Washington Post. Because Aiden Pierce is the lead character of the Watch_Dogs franchise, I think it would be easy to have a complete description of the character there without running into undue weight issues. Criticism of Pierce is criticism of Watch_Dogs as a whole, hence why most of the reliable sources used in this article are full-game reviews. The Appearances section largely recounts the plot of the games (at length, using almost exclusively primary sources, ugh), which also shows the strong overlap. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral after more sources have been dug up. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Maplestrip. Someone can always expand on the main character's backstory and reception at the main game article. There isn't so much good coverage that it meets WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• But his hat is so iconic! Redirect per Mable. None of the reliable sources are focused solely on the character, but rather discuss him in the context of a review of the game as a whole. No development info. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per nom - the reception is largely trivial mentions pulled from reviews, rather than discussing him alone as a character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Though most above are saying that the article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, I found a few articles on the character on numerous sources [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]([14]small section) and theres this short guide from IGN which I'm not sure counts and the GiantBomb one looks like an actual review. MK at your service. 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For reference, see Nilin (Remember Me), the character's reception mostly uses the game's reviews, and the appearances section uses lines from the game to reference it. Some articles do exist on the character, which are mentioned in the concept and development section. MK at your service. 08:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not really an argument; Nilin could be notable after digging per WP:BEFORE and not because of that game reviews. Comparing other articles isn't helpful. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure why are you pulling out more game reviews, plot content-like sources, and unreliable sources/wiki/game guide articles. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's go through these. (1) Game Industry News is currently listed as non-conclusive, and Michael Blaker does not seem particularly experienced. Article praises the character and repeats that he gets "reintroduced" in this novel, but there's nothing else here. (2) ScreenRant I would not count for WP:N. (3) IGN, this looks like a really good one! (4) Tassi on Forbes is a senior contributor, which I think is a good sign? This article is actually about something. (5) GameInformer review with a focus on what Pearce represents and such. (6) Petrick Kepleck (GiantBomb), despite looking like a wiki editor, is indeed a proper reporter. Proper reception and emotional significance on Aiden. (7) NME, I have to be wondering if all this stuff is just part of Watch_Dogs: Legion reception specifically. There's some stuff here but not much. (8) Yahoo review that does not add to WP:N. All-inall, still zero development information, which makes me hesitant, but there's a lot more here. Shame none of it was used. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  IGN is more like a game-guide content;but there's no need to expound more since its not gonna survive AfD. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 07:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  IGN does both, and it's important to separate the articles from the gameguides from the user-generated stuff. Joe Skrebels seems to have been a professional news editor at IGN. Confusingly, when I open this article, it redirects me to a Dutch translation with a different author. Annoying, but the effort of translation may suggest that IGN considers this a good article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I think I worded it incorrectly oops. I mean't the IGN that was brought up here as a sourcd not IGN in General is just making game guide content. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 07:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Maplestrip. The above also isn't convincing me, given it's mainly reviews and valnet. And normally I like Valnet but you need some meat to go with it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Brown Jr.[edit]

Cleveland Brown Jr. (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)

Does not meet general notability guidelines. The little significant coverage mentioning this character is not about the character itself, rather focusing on the show at large. -Samoht27 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Comics and animation. -Samoht27 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of characters in the Family Guy franchise#Cleveland_Brown_Jr. - The sources currently in the article are extremely weak, either being primary, or a couple sentences from an interview. Searches did not turn up much better - the character is mentioned in general coverage of the show(s) he appeared in, but nothing close to any kind of significant coverage that would justify a independent article. A general overview of both the fictional and real world history of the character is already included in the main franchise character list, so this should be Redirected there. Rorshacma (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Rorshacma. This doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, but there is a valid WP:ATD and redirect target here. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of characters in the Family Guy franchise#Cleveland_Brown_Jr..Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrigan Aensland[edit]

Morrigan Aensland (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 so surprised to find that this article literally has nothing in the way of Reception. I took on the task of cleaning out the very outdated and over bloated Reception, and when I was done trimming out trivial mentions and unreliable sources, I found practically nothing left over. I performed an extensive BEFORE in the hopes of finding something to salvage this article, but there is genuinely nothing out there bar trivial mentions from stuff like CBR. In the article's current state I'm really not seeing enough to meet the GNG, and I'd suggest a merge or redirect to the Darkstalkers character list as an AtD. I'm genuinely so surprised there's nothing here, so if anyone can find anything I missed to improve this article, please feel free to share them, but right now I just don't think there's enough for an article here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A reception section is not necessary for a fictional element to meet GNG. Can you comment on the plethora of other sourcing still present in the article? Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seconding this. I've mentioned this to the nominator many times before but they never seem to hear me.. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would appreciate not being accused of ignoring advice, here, and I've been wary of that primarily after the Koopa Troopa debate. Akin to that article and other articles I've seen in similar situations, those articles had a demonstrated impact beyond or within their series (Koopa Troopa influencing the designs of many characters in the series, for example.) Morrigan has some decent conception information, yes, but there's nothing in her conception information really demonstrating an inherent importance to her series or beyond it, especially in conjunction with the real lack of overall Reception, hence why I nominated it. Pinging @Jclemens for this reasoning so they're notified of this reply, given that both of you had the same query. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you don't like the accusations, stop writing nominations that hinge so heavily on the lack of a reception section. Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Reception is a major crux in showing the subject's notability. While conception and design info can greatly help with that, oftentimes it isn't enough. (For instance, I once worked on a draft for Celebi (Pokemon), and that article had fantastic conception information but nothing showing that Celebi actually made an impact on anything.) Reception needs to work in conjunction with design information to prove a subject's notability, and I have seen cases where this is the case (For instance, I recently got Mew (Pokémon) to Good Article, and that article's heavy amounts of developmental information in conjunction with its displayed cultural impact help demonstrate notability) but in the case of Morrigan, there's scraps of information in her Reception with a conception section that doesn't display that Morrigan impacted her series with her design (akin to Koopa Troopa) nor has there been extensive detail on the subject's development been published to a point where the development in and of itself is notable. I'm not saying the conception info here isn't bad, but what I am saying is that I'm not seeing enough for a separate article to be worthwhile when a more than valid AtD happens to exist. I will admit that past cases such as Shulk and Koopa Troopa turned out to be incorrect in terms of their consensus, but I have noted these past consensuses and adapted it into my overall philosophy with articles. If Morrigan had even a few sources more I'd believe her to be meeting the notability guideline, but in this case she just frankly isn't. I have concerns with your accusation not because I'm ignoring your advice, but because of the fact that I worry that you think I am. Just because I have had past AfDs with "Keep" consensuses should not immediately devalue this one solely on the grounds of the one who nominated it, especially since I have laid out my rationale in very extensive detail in response to both you and Jclemens's queries. Additionally, I would also appreciate that we keep to the discussion of the subject in question, as I feel continuing down this chain of response will only lead to us getting off topic, but I thought I'd at least make my stance clear for clarity's sake so this does not become an issue both for this discussion and for future discussions. If you have further concerns about this, I'd appreciate if we continue it on my user talk page, since an AfD is not the proper place for a discussion about editing practices that do not pertain to this discussion in question. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A reception section is one, but not the only, way to demonstrate notability. Many, but not all, RS coverage could be shoehorned into a reception section. Hence me asking the clarifying question: is there no RS coverage that you believe to be suitable for a reception section, or no RS coverage at all? You wrote a nomination that didn't answer that question, and I'd still like to hear your thoughts on that, because at first blush there appears to be a lot of references in the article, most of which are not in the reception section. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm a bit confused about what you're asking. Are you asking about if there are sources for Reception used in the plot summary? From what I can tell, most of them are just verifying plot information or something similar, and any conception info isn't valid for Reception in this case. I can take another look when I'm home if you want but when I looked I didn't really notice much in the way of anything helpful in there. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Darkstalkers series (and its media spin-offs) were at the height of their popularity from 1994 to c. 1998. I an not certain that there are recent sources on for a series that has not seen new entries for about 25 years. Dimadick (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I definitely second this, but I admittedly was unable to find much in the way of coverage in a peruse of Archive.org, and any other form of accessing sourcing or magazine coverage from that time period is inaccessible to me. There may be coverage, but the existence of it cannot be ascertained unless other editors bring them to light. If significant coverage in those kinds of source is found, I'd definitely be willing to reconsider my stance, but I unfortunately cannot confirm the existence of these potential sources at this time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Darkstalkers characters. Could not really find any SIGCOV besides this, but there is a perfectly fine WP:ATD. However, deleting nearly the entire reception before nominating is considered something of a "cover-up" and not encouraged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies, I wasn't really intending anything of the sort, as I was intending to just clean up the article before I realized the lack of any actual coverage in there. I will assure you that the stuff I removed wasn't really doing much for the article, in any case, and if any editor wishes to take a look at the sources in the old state of the article, they can be found here. For the most part, it was primarily trivial mentions and sources of questionable authenticity (Practically of all of which were not really helpful either way). Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pokelego999 "I will assure you that the stuff I removed wasn't really doing much for the article" I disagree with you strongly (and I am a deletionist). Please do not remove such content ever again outside AfD, or without providing detailed explanation on talk why a particular source is unreliable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want, I am willing to do an analysis on each source I removed from the article. I am more than willing to justify my stance on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zxcvbnm @Pokelego999 This is... bad. If the article is kept, I ask Pokelago999 to restore the removed content. What was wrong, for example, with " In 1996, Mean Machines Sega described her as "one of the most bewitching girl characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women!"" sourced to "Mean Machines Sega 40 (February 1996), pages 18–20."? @Daranios in case you have not seen this (plenty of interesting sources there). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Half of these sources were using trivial mentions putting up a semblance of notability when coverage really isn't there. For instance, the article you're citing seems to really be only a sentence in terms of actual commentary. Looking at the magazine in particular, the text states "A succubus, or demon, who feeds on human blood while hiding in beautiful female form, Morrigan is one of the most bewitching characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women! Given the chance, she reveals her less attractive batty form. Specialty attacks include creating mirror images of herself, and blasting across the screen on a beam of fire." and nothing more. For the most part this is relatively minor, with only the cited sentence really amounting to much. At most, all that can be cited is "in beautiful female form, Morrigan is one of the most bewitching characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women!" which is at most an extension of one sentence coverage, aka the standard definition of a trivial mention. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While that source is not very relevant for notability (due to SIGCOV) it is very relevant to the content. IF the article is kept, this, and likely most if not all of what you have removed, should be restored. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But if it isn't relevant, why did you vote keep? You only provided two sources to prove notability, one of which doesn't apply to notability, and then didn't specify what other sources counted as SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Unless sourcing is found, per Zx. I went through the sources as shown in the article's history, and and extensively through WP:BEFORE. I *rewrote* the entire dev section on this article even. But I don't think Pokelego's reasoning is wrong here: when you look at what's actually being said here, and the context, it's not there or at least hasn't been found. Even the Troopa article had some footing on how it changed with the Mario series and affected it, and that'd been lost. Here anything major can be summed up for the list or series article I feel.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ADDENDUM I feel it's important to note too that this is one of Niemti/Snake's articles, an editor known for refbombing, overblowing sources, or outright fabricating information. The dev section alone before I rewrote it was a bit of a wreck in that regard, so reference count should not be considered as proof.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the content of this source [15] to list since the character didn't passed WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The source mentioned by Zxcvbnm together with the Kotaku article (which is about one sculpture representation, but also about the character as a whole) and the shorter treatment in this academic article, as well as many other shorter comments in my view fullfill the miniumum requirements of WP:GNG and allow to write a non-stubby article which fullfills the requirements of both WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT. Also e.g. some commentary in the Gameplay section amounts to reception even if it is under a different heading for reasons of coherence. Failing that, I would obviously prefer a merge as WP:ATD compared to deletion. Daranios (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Daranios: The mention of Morrigan in the academic article is solely listing her as an example of an erotic devil and not saying anything about that depiction other than briefly stating what a succubus is supposed to be. Additionally the sources under gameplay fall under game guide, and are strictly relating to how the character played in those particular title. To boot, if you look at these articles, they are done for all characters there, not individually just for her. If that counted as SIGCOV, we'd have articles for every Pokemon.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: If you would like to have sources with Morrigan as the main topic, which is not required by WP:GNG, there would be the two-page book chapter and the Kotaku web article, thus two sources for the bare minium of "multiple sources". The academic article talks about the iconography represented by Morrigan, I'll add what I see there to the article when I have time. Sources under game play descibe the game play, but there are also things like she's a "balanced character" "but doesn't stand out", which are clearly value judgements, i.e. reception. Otherwise things boil down to the usual discussion: That sources should not "count" for notability if they do not have long or exclusive treatment of the topic is an interpretation of WP:SIGCOV which I do not share. To the contrary my interpretation is that multiple short treatments collectively can form significant coverage, but of course only if said coverage is not trivial. That then is the something one can argue about, like the fact that someone had added source to the article thinking them worthwhile, while Pokelego999 has removed many in the good faith assumption that said coverage was trivial. So far I have only looked at the remaining sources after that clean-up. Daranios (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: I'm all down for a "Death by 1000 Cuts" approach, but sources still have to be saying something and offering some sort of analysis to satisfy SIGCOV. There still needs to be something that illustrates discussion that warrants an encyclopedic article. "Morrigan is a succubus" and nothing more in an article academic or otherwise isn't that. I get trying to save an article, but you can't by calling molehills mountains.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: Thanks for improving the content from "Lilith en la cultura audiovisual". I think what we have there now is indeed something (I've never claimed it was very long). So my opinion remains that there is enough non-trivial material based on secondary sources available to write a non-stubby article, and what we already have in this regard in the article now would be akwardly much if pressed into the current format of List of Darkstalkers characters. Thus I still prefer keep over merge. Daranios (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: I strongly feel you are giving that source undue weight: it's not an examination of her as a character, or even commentary of, it's simply observing she's a succubus in modern media. It is borderline trivial, and nothing would be lost by the article being merged (unlike the Koopa Troopa article above).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: I believe the two sentences added are suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia which has no space limit as in WP:NOTPAPER, I do not find this look into the creative origins trivial. That's all the weight I give that one source. Daranios (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in Kotaku ([16], [17]), plus other sources (granted, many don't meet SIGCOV) should be enough. She is a classic icon in anime and manga fandom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just being well known isn't enough for an article- debates such as Diddy Kong, King K. Rool, and Pit have shown as much. Additionally, one of the sources you cite here is CBR, which per WP:VALNET, bears no weight on notability in discussions such as these. The Kotaku source is... a figurine review? Admittedly the first paragraph is nice but the rest is the author criticizing fan artists and describing how good a figurine looks, which really doesn't discuss Morrigan much at all. As you stated above, most of the other sources don't meet SIGCOV. There really aren't many strong sources, if at all, to support this. Per my above comment, I'm willing to give an in-depth source analysis on every single source I removed to prove my point further. There's really just nothing here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective impression that a character is well known isn't enough for an article. But if secondary sources talk about this, like the Kotaku source does ("one of the most widely depicted characters in video games", very popular in cosply), then that is exactly what the notability requirement asks for. So, yeah, the Kotaku article does review a figure, which is well within the scope of this topic, but the same article additionally discusses the character as a whole. Daranios (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For about one paragraph, yes. The rest of the content, per my above comment, is mostly unusable as it does not pertain to Morrigan's character. I believe the paragraph, is, as you said, usable, but that's really all that can be taken from the Kotaku source. Even then, it really only notes that the character is popular, which isn't enough to support the article itself, given that there are only one (debatably two) other sources in the Reception contributing to notability. I concur with KFM on the subject of the book being pretty trivial since it's really only a two sentence comparison to another character stating their designs are similar. I can't speak on "500 Essential Anime Movies: The Ultimate Guide" since I lack access to it, but an article that's just a paragraph of people saying "she's popular" with no commentary plus one or two additional sources really doesn't have enough to justify a separation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given that editors are getting hung up over the removal of sources in my cleanup, I've elected to go over each removed source in this comment. This should hopefully allow for clarity on the reasons each of these sources do not aid Morrigan's notability.

-"Go On, Let Morrigan Drive You Batty" from Kotaku really only states "Since debuting in 1994 Darkstalkers: The Night Warriors, Morrigan Aensland has become one of gaming's most iconic characters. A fan service favorite, Morrigan continues to attract cosplayers, eager to put on succubus's revealing outfit..." the rest is just the author critiquing fan cosplays. This is basically a trivial mention given that, in basic terms, it's just saying "She's iconic and popular in cosplay." It can be used to bolster the point of the prior Kotaku article mentioned above by Daranios and Piotrus, but given how weak it is- and the fact that is three paragraphs and a swarm of links to random cosplays- its overall commentary is minimal.

-The "Mean Machines Sega 40" source, which Piotrus brought up earlier, has this one sentence summary of Morrigan being popular. Thing is, it only acknowledges that she's popular in cosplay, and she isn't even the sole focus, with Felicia also being brought up. A look at the source reveals no more than this. Frankly, this is a very trivial mention given how brief it is, especially given it isn't even specifically about Morrigan.

-I can't access the UGO source given it's a dead link like all other UGO sources, but given it seems to be an easter egg video for Scott Pilgrim, I'd assume the commentary is a rather minimal explanation of a cameo appearance in the game. At most it can really only be used to additionally verify the "she's popular" claim.

-"Top 15 sexiest characters to cosplay" is exactly the kind of commentary Wikipedia needs. But yeah, sarcasm aside, this basically just says "Morrigan is sexy" in a single sentence of a top fifteen listicle. Trivial mention in a nutshell.

-This Destructoid source is a brief, three-four paragraph article talking briefly about an upcoming figure, and unlike the Kotaku source, the reviewer barely comments on the figure in question. Again, just another brief thing saying "Morrigan is popular" with little to no substance.

-These sources for famous cosplay figures are... bizarre. The Nigri source is just a link to her Facebook page, the first Gosiengfago source is just a brief paragraph of how she likes cosplay and how Morrigan is one (among many) characters she enjoys cosplaying. I can't access the UNO Guam source but it seems to be owned by the same people who made the last Gosiengfago source. The Kotaku source is a brief couple paragraph blurb about how a photo of a Morrigan cosplay looked good. There's nothing on the character there bar verifying the fact that Gosiengfago cosplayed Morrigan. The first Le source is an interview, which is a primary source. The other Le source I can't access because of a pop-up for their newsletter or whatever it is... which seems to indicate the site itself is really iffy, but I can't ascertain reliability per the pop-up. The G4tv source is labelled as a blog but seems to be a staff writer which is confusing, but either way is really only a sentence or two of commentary at most. The first Meritt source is a trivial mention briefly discussing how she did Morrigan once. The second Meritt source seems to be a blog, while the third source mentions her for a sentence. The Bayonetta source mentions Morrigan once as a past cosplay with no additional commentary. While this kind of stuff is worth mentioning, there's a lot of very trivial mentions of it being roped in (Or straight up unreliable sources) being roped in that put undue weight onto this part of the subject. You can very likely trim this down to just a sentence saying "Several notable people have cosplayed Morrigan..." and leave it at that, though even then there's a lot of sources that need trimming first.

-Second usage of the same Mean Machines source which I've gone over above already.

-The two sources following Mean Machines- ""ベストキャラクター賞" [Best Character Award]. Gamest (212): 102. 30 January 1998." and "SSM 25/1997, page 125." are both random listicle rankings that place her rather low on it overall. There's not really any value in these sources and they're the exact type of thing that wouldn't be acceptable in an article these days.

-Famitsu source is the same as above, except this time it's literally just her name in a column and nothing else.

-I can't access the "muses" source, even via Wayback/Archive, but it seems like a rather trivial listicle given it's a top twenty for a niche subject.

-The Girls of Gaming source I can't access, but it seems minor overall given it's an introductory quote not even entirely about Morrigan. If you can find this one do let me know so I can take a look at it.

-The Kotaku source following this literally has all of its commentary summed up by what's quoted in the old version, that being "I've always found Morrigan a fascinating character. Darkstalkers is a fairly obscure series, one which few people will have played on a regular basis, and yet Morrigan is always front and centre when it comes to fan art and cosplay." Aka, it's one sentence of coverage in a three paragraph long article which is literally just the author sharing a cool piece of Morrigan fanart they found on DeviantArt.

-EGM Source seems to literally just be "Morrigan had a baby named after them" which is cool I guess but very much trivia and not even that uncommon among videogame characters.

-The GamesRadar source about Morrigan and Chun-Li in Project x Zone is not even entirely about Morrigan and just reiterates that she's popular and nothing more. The fact the bit quoted had to link Chun-Li in the quote for it to make sense is telling.

-The GamesRadar top thirty source mentions Morrigan as part of Felicia's description. Morrigan isn't even ranked on the list.

-The GameSpot source's entire text is "From the Capcom side, this week we're featuring everybody's favorite succubus, Morrigan. Hailing from the Darkstalkers universe, Morrigan has been a mainstay in the Capcom crossover fighting games and is definitely a fan favorite. Morrigan's default costume is perfect for her personality: somewhere between a batlike demon and a charming lover. The purple and teal are great colors to work from." Which is... very minimal. It, again, boils down to "she's popular" and I guess one sentence on color cohesion? Will note this whole source is mostly just summarizing alt colors for an upcoming fighting game, and that Morrigan wasn't even the only character being described, with Deadpool being directly before her, for example, with similarly trivial commentary.

-Again, I can't find or access the "play" sources, so I can't assess their notability, but given that they are summarized with zero quotes or anything, keeping them around is very much not a weight on notability unless their contents can be found and assessed.

-The Crunchyroll source is just the author making one sentence commentary on various pieces of fanart- and not all of them are about Morrigan. Very much a trivial mention.

-GamesTM is a standard "Why did this character get in instead of x and x" thing that happens every time a fighting game roster is fully revealed. Very much a trivial mention, especially since it isn't even exclusively Morrigan who is brought up here.

-The We Love Golf source is cool trivia but not much more.

-The Kotaku source following this mentions Morrigan once in the whole article. This is the most trivial mention trivial mention I've ever seen.

-I can't even access where Morrigan is in the Game Informer source due to the link expiring. Due to the fact that the link's stuck with a broken archive link, it's impossible to ascertain the notability of this source, but this seems to be a standard list akin to "twenty characters we'd like to see in the next Smash game" kind of deal. Not impossible for commentary but it seems unlikely.

-Complex source is a weak listicle per others above. The second complex link literally mentions Morrigan once in the whole article with no additional commentary.

-The only commentary I can glean from the GamesRadar listicle is "This sultry succubus is one of fighting games leading ladies, striking a balance between the dignified seriousness of Chun-Li and the hyper-sexualized cleavage-heaving antics of Mai Shiranui. Granted, Morrigans ridiculously revealing costume seems like it could slip off at any moment." The rest is plot summary and appearance summaries, and the second sentence of this quote is just "she has skimpy clothing" which really doesn't count as valid commentary.

-Third Complex source is another listicle per the others above.

-I can't speak on Gamenguide's popularity, but in the case of the article, it's literally just saying "She's popular because a Darkstalkers game just came out and strong in competitive" with a one sentence statement saying she's iconic. Really only is able to verify the above two "popularity" and "iconic" points more than anything else.

-Crunchyroll source after this is a figure review with one sentence of commentary on Morrigan, being "Morrigan Aensland is a perennial Darkstalkers favorite, and for good reason. She's gorgeous, powerful, and all-around awesome." which is the definition of a trivial mention.

-Do I even have to explain why 3/4 of the "sex appeal" articles are unreliable? You can take a look if you want but most of them are trivial rankings or listicles about how Morrigan is sexy and whatnot. It's very unprofessional and doesn't even have much significant commentary.

-A Top 50 listicle about "chicks behaving badly" offers very little real commentary on Morrigan.

-Morrigan isn't even mentioned in the following GamesRadar source, she's just included as part of an image collage alongside who knows how many other characters. This article is more about Chell (Portal) than anything else.

-The next two listicles really explain themselves. Following this, most of the sources there fall into similar pitfalls of "Really random thing tangentially related to Morrigan and how she was brought up in an oddly specific listicle." There's really nothing in any of them and they all lack substance. The Game Revolution source is literally just an April Fool's joke they did that doesn't even comment on Morrigan, and instead is just a joke.

-The entire paragraph on her cartoon appearance are all trivial mentions, primarily sourced to season reviews that are barely about her.

I feel you could maybe squeeze some stuff out of the celebrity cosplayers bit if you tried but that doesn't really help with notability when nearly every other source surrounding it boils down to a trivial mention or sources that just aren't valuable commentary in the slightest. Do ping me if anyone disagrees with any assessments here and I'll be willing to elaborate on these in further detail, but I do hope this helps enlighten some of my thinking with removing these sources and why I feel they don't contribute to Morrigan's notability in a debate like this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just repeat what I wrote above, which is that while you are right that most of those sources "don't contribute to Morrigan's notability", they are relevant to the article, and if the article is kept, they shold be restored. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't contribute to notability then they don't contribute at all. Several of these per Pokelego's analysis above literally don't say anything: they're just images. And speaking frankly, I would've cleaned the hell out of this article if they hadn't, because I have had the unfortunate experience of doing that with Niemti's works.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Kung Fu Man above, if these don't contribute to notability, then how are they in anyway relevant to the notability of the subject in this discussion? We're not talking about what happens if this article is kept, we're talking about if it should be kept at all or not, and per above, the sources you've provided to prove it should be kept are very weak. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many cases where a source does not contribute to notability by failing SIGCOV which does not prevent it from being useful to developing an article. Passing mentions can often be used to flesh out an article or provide various datapoints, and there is nothing in our rules against using such sources as long as they are reliable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But trivial mentions don't build an article. If the sources aren't there to verify notability, then the subject isn't notable no matter how many trivial mentions there are. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet short coverage is not automatically trivial. Daranios (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would agree, but the "short" coverage here isn't short in a usable sense. Most of these sources are a sentence or two of actual coverage, which invalidates a good chunk from being anything more than support and is very much the definition of a trivial mention. There's very little SIGCOV here, if at all. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in (man this is turning into a mess), but a key thing there is you need the SIGCOV for those lesser sources to support at least and build around, even if only to some extent. What we have here instead feels like trying to hold up a wall with no nails and just the wallpaper.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it's any help, I've found two scholarly sources on Morrigan. MoonJet (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking through the two, the first is questioning if it's reasonable for her to be sexually objectified because she's a succubus. It's brief but could be useful, however it's also just a student essay and Anette Holmström doesn't appear to have any credentials or publication history. The second after hunting it down is discussing how a cosplayer came to like the character and the various stages of understanding them. It's mainly framed through the cosplayer's recollection, but some tangible thoughts could be cited from the paper's observations of her statements and reactions as it's published. It could at least give the whole "she's popular in cosplay" thing a little bit of a leg to stand on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinions on the first source are akin to KFM's (It's pretty small, but it also has debatable weighting towards notability) while I am unable to access the second source. I trust KFM's judgement on the second source as potential elaboration on the cosplay point, but as I said I am unable to ascertain how much would be added, and if it would be trivial or substantial overall. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's been extensive argumentation from participants thus far, who are relatively evenly divided between merge and keep. Additional opinions from new participants would likely be the most useful contribution for establishing a consensus at this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MoonJet Please provide a stable link to your second source, or otherwise bibliographic data so we can actually find and access it, if you could - TIA :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I hope this link or this Google Scholar search will work. Daranios (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to stress that for both of the Keep votes, the argument seems to be "Well the old version of the article had more sources"...but no presentation of those sources outside of one or two that are essentially just a sentence or two. Even wors, the sources here aren't actually illustrating why a character is important: we have repetitions of "she's sexy/awesome!" and "she's popular in fan works!", but no encyclopedic weight given as to *why* she is beyond "Capcom uses her a lot". Trying to search through Japanese sources like Inside Games is also illustrating that there's just no commentary. And despite asking multiple times, neither of the editors voting "Keep" have provided sources from the "old version" that really illustrate SIGCOV or why this is important separate of the parent work. The argument was also made that "It can't be merged into the list without losing info" but both elements of the aforementioned reception can be summed up as "Due to Capcom's frequent use, she has been cited as the most popular character from the franchise, and is frequently the subject of fan works." I feel these points, as a whole, need to be considered when closing the AfD: the arguments for it just don't hold water as much as I'd personally wish they did.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: Your impression you have summarized here is not at all what I said in my original keep argument, maybe due to topics discussed further down. If one would like to look again, my original argument plus addendum was based on the then current version of the article plus finds from WP:BEFORE searches, not the old version. I do believe there is something worthwhile in the trimmed parts, agreeing completely with this point raised by Piotrus, but that's an additional argument, not the one my original keep statement is based on. Daranios (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not disproving my argument: you're just doing WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST with extra steps.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: Huh, how could that impression come about in the face of my arguments from 5th and 6th of June? Sure, one can discuss about the sources, but how can it be a WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST case, when the sources were either concretely provided and linked here, or are present in the current version of the article? That's what WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST asks us to do, isn't it? I don't think it will contribute more to this discussion, but do you want me to reiterate the sources? Daranios (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because again, I haven't seen any actual sources brought up from there other than the one's mentioned to indicate SIGCOV, THREE or much meat at all that warrant a revert let alone keeping the article. I've seen shouts *to* roll it back to that, but that just puts everything in the same spot where another editor will just have to clean them back out. So what sources in that whole mess do you feel really satisfy SIGCOV and THREE?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we are re-treading old ground, but to bring it together: 30th anniversary Capcom character encyclopedia, p. 125, "Darkstalkers' Sultry Succubus Has Never Looked Quite So Good" and all the other secondary sources currently making up the article. Is that enough? Well, first of all, we do have a full non-stubby article even after the trim. I expect the Concept and creation section is completely fine and fitting for an encyclopedic article, which circles back to the initial argument by Jclemens that not only a reception section is relevant. But I don't really have a good overview if these are all independent reliable secondary sources. So whatever is going on there, I believe the current reception section is fine for an encyclopedic article and should be preserved in case there should be a merge rather than a keep decision. Taking this section, and the already discussed brief commentary on gameplay by EMG2 and Revista Oficial Dreamcast, as well as the one sentence by Guinness World Records, with that content alone we are already nicely beyond the somewhat fuzzy WP:Stub threshold of 250 words, even if we discount the contribution by CBR which is debatable with regard to notability. All of that content I do not find trivial. Capcom Encyclopedia and the recently found "O Eros em uma sociedade cansada: uma busca narcisista pelo outro através dos videogames", as well as any other sources removed from the article, are not yet part of this count. That means without having to do further research we already do fullfill the requirements of WP:WHYN (We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic.) and therefore WP:N. This content is made up by many small contributions from multiple sources, or, as you put it, by a "Death by 1000 Cuts" approach. Which I do not see as a problem. Daranios (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 30th Anni book is WP:PRIMARY, Capcom produced it for that year's San Diego Comic Con and then sold it separately. The statement in the Kotaku ref is the one CBR is making. The gameplay commentary is not exclusive to her: again, if those worked as sources, we'd be citing game guides and having pokemon popping out of the woodwork. Under scrutiny, these arguments aren't holding water.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the 30th Anniversery book, I guess. But as I said, we still have a full article without that Anni book (not yet in the article) and not counting the one sentence by CBR (which presumably could be combined into the commentary based on the Kotaku source). It is specifically not necessary for sources to be relevant for notability that the topic is the main subject of the source. If we have relevant commentary that refers to the character, which is not trivial an fits into an encyclopedic article on a fictional character, than it can contribute the the Wikipedia article and therefore to notability as spelled out in WP:WHYN. I believe this is the case for the current version of the article. Daranios (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in light of the sources found. More to the point, a perfectly decent article can be--and has been--written, so wrangling over the minutae of notability in order to eliminate an otherwise adequate article is silly: If it's this close on a fictional topic that isn't hurting anyone to include (or not), then just leave it in. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the article's sources may not be great and the article itself could definitely be improved upon, Morrigan remains a highly popular and oft-discusses video game character, with articles like this detailing her popularity and reasons for why she's popular with audiences; linking her sex appeal with that of Lady Dimitrescu. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm gonna play the devil's advocate and say keep the article live. I do believe Morrigan is one of the more iconic characters in the Darkstalkers franchise, to the point that she basically transcended her own series to appear in the plethora of crossovers where she appears. Not to mention the fanarts that i've seen of her in old magazines such as Gamest when doing research for other arcade games and people doing cosplay of her to this day. I strongly believe there is potential for the page to become one of the more fleshed out articles for a fictional video game character. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I'ma be real, I get where editors are coming from with their keep !votes, and I don't think Morrigan is the weakest character article we have. Yet, I echo Kung Fu Man's sentiment that there's very little that can actually be said. I've done multiple WP:BEFOREs, I've scoured Japanese and Chinese sources to find something that could help improve Morrigan even before the AfD, but despite all my best efforts, I've found very little that say much of anything of substance. Morrigan gets brief mentions of her significance, but I don't believe that the end result of the reception is more than two or three lines. I don't think it should be a simple matter of counting sources, but the end result of said sources. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not trying to bludgeon, but I want to stress that this does bother me as a longtime editor on these articles, because it feels like we're setting up a consensus that this is now the new WP:Pokemon Test: the bare minimum an article can have said about it and somehow pass notability. We're using terms like "there's many sources", "she's in a lot of games", "fan reactions", and it makes me wonder how do we measure that? I ask these things because it makes me reconsider some past merges I've done, while also worried how much WP:ILIKEIT is a factor in this AfD, especially considering Cukie's points above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no articles proposed for deletion at this time