Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Fictional elements. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Fictional elements|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Fictional elements. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

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

Related deletion sorting

Fictional elements

Purple Francis

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 13#Purple francis. Article is about a joke character, which was BLARed in 2021 because of a lack of notability. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

disagree with the stated blar reasoning. seemed more like an editor not liking it, despite at least two others having agreed before that it did meet the gng

that aside, keep. for better or worse (definitely worse), purple francis does have those reliable sources on him. still no prejudice against draftifying or userifying, since its prose might be a little undercooked for mainspace, but i don't think it's anything that can't be done in around an hour and 9 minutes cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Left 4 Dead (franchise). This is a very small Stub primarily filled with a lot of information about Purple Francis's in-universe information. There is very little coverage showing Purple Francis's actual impact and popularity that can't be just be summarized in one sentence. It warrants a mention, but it's not necessary for this to have a separate article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also fair, to be honest cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the franchise article. Coverage is not SUSTAINED and the incident could be covered with a sentence or two in the franchise article, if that. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pokelego999. The coverage is trivial, and doesn't have significant reception or analysis. I'd also support a redirect, but merge is a good compromise, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Per above. Svartner (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Wily

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

This has been redirected because it relies heavily on primary sources and the nominator's WP:BEFORE found nothing but game reviews, but i am here to give this article a second chance, Wily is a pretty popular character, it has been a year and a half since it was redirected, so doing a WP:BEFORE should find some reliable sources as a keep, but if not, we can restore the merge and redirect. Toby2023 (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect and procedural close per WP:G4. This is the exact same article we looked at last time (zero alterations) and this is an abuse of process. It’s not AFD’s job to source hunt in this context, and the nominator didn’t even bother to suggest what these new sources are in asking for us to look at this again. If you want to work on it, do so in WP:USERSPACE by copy pasting the article into your WP:SANDBOX. When you have located new sources and then improved the article to a state where you think it meets WP:GNG undo the the redirect and make it live per WP:BOLD. If people disagree it may end back here at WP:AFD. At which point we will either confirm your opinion or reinstate the redirect. Don’t ask us to relook at anything that hasn’t changed since the last time we looked at it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request Could someone please link the discussion leading to this becoming a redirect, because I cannot see it? Daranios (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge it was BLAR'd after some scattered discussion, per reasons described in the edit summary and in this AfD's nom. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose procedural close, WP:G4 doesn't apply here, there hasn't been a previous AfD or other discussion, just someone BLARring the page. --Mika1h (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My sentiments exactly. Rather, after the article was boldly redirected, any editor with an opposing opinion is justified to restore the article and start a more thorough discussion according to the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. That said though, it would have been the burden of the nominator to conduct a WP:BEFORE search according to the deletion process, which should not be pushed onto the participants of the discussion. It's an unusual case here, because the nominator is also the one who restored the article first, but still. Daranios (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd advise an analysis of the article's sourcing as well as of any potential sourcing, given that we're in this venue now, and especially so since the nom does not seem to have done a BEFORE. I'll take a look later myself and see if I find anything, but the current Reception is very much a lot of random listicle rankings and such that don't really say much, so I doubt most of it can really be considered Wikipedia:SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My BEFORE wasn't very fruitful. I turned up two Destructoid sources- [1] This one is a merchandise announcement that briefly covers how Wily's groveling became iconic, but that's pretty minor and can be summed up in a sentence. [2] This one happens to cover Wily's actions, but after reading it, it becomes apparent it's just a very dramatically worded summary of Wily's actions throughout the Mega Man series.

A look through Books yielded nothing bar trivial mentions and official material, and Scholar yielded the same. [3][4] These two mention Wily, but I can't access them, so I have no idea to what degree their coverage of him is. If both of these turn out to have nothing, then there's nothing really else for this guy at all. If someone who has access can assess these sources, I'd appreciate it greatly. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the former accessible through this link? I've seen there very brief characterization as a "selfish scientist" with "aspirations of world domination", and a few sentences of plot summary there. Daranios (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios Looks like they're one and the same, good find. It looks primarily to be about Mega Man the character and series, and less so Wily, who only gets mentioned a few times with very little substance. I doubt it'd be enough to help Wily. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Endorse I don't yet have an opinion on notability, but considering the article history, having an AFD discussion in lieu of a unilateral blank-and-redirect is reasonable. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect I really wish people would just give the BLAR process a chance; there's no indication of notability, nothing new has been presented to indicate notability, and instead if for some reason the character achieves notability later on, reviving it will be that much harder. Additionally it should be on the AfD nominator to do the before, not people responding to it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles I find uncontroversial to BLAR are something that is totally uncited or pure plot. If it even has a hint of citations, it should go to full AfD discussion. Many can interpret BLARs of fully cited articles as doing an end-run around an AfD, even if that is not intended. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshimitsu

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

The reception section is a mess of listicles and "anything not nailed down" types of articles. While there can be some degree of commentary gleamed for Yoshimitsu, it's brief and often repetitive. Even checking sources I've used in the past for Soulcalibur characters doesn't offer much at all. There's just no meat on this bone that I can find. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Honestly, I'm leaning forward to being neutral in this situation. I feel like there's a chance the character might be notable since they have been involved in two fighting game franchises and have almost appeared in every main game of each franchise and gone through multiple distinct designs. Otherwise, the best source I could find about Yoshimitsu is [5]. These sources might also help [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. Aside from that, this character has three incarnations throughout the Tekken and Soulcalibur franchises, so if the character information is going to be merged, then the Tekken version of Yoshimitsu should be merged in Characters of the Tekken series, and the Soulcalibur version of Yoshimitsu should be merged in Characters of the Soulcalibur series. Kazama16 (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Den of Geek one is the strongest source coupled with Jasper's commentary on the Tekken character ranking list. The main problem though is that the Game Rant and CGMag refs are echoes of some of the commentary from that one on the designs and could be summed up as "his appearance changes frequently", PushSquare is basically death battle commentary in this case, and The Gamer and 3DPrint refs are both about fan works (I checked to see if the designer on the latter had some notability that could help but no dice). I feel there may not be enough actually said for SIGCOV when the sources are lined up is my concern.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Just not notable. The WP:GNG is clearly failed here. If this page is redirected, it should be moved and the DAB made primary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Farnsworth

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

This is not an AfD i want to do. I absolutely love Futurama and it was one of my favorite comedy cartoons, but unfortunately, this character does not pass WP:GNG. Of the eight sources, none are independent and are only passing mentions, some don't even discuss him, at all. I tried doing a WP:BEFORE and i can't find anything that talks about him.

Again, i didn't want to do this, but i have to, there is no turning back from what i am doing, so i am doing the right thing to nominate this for AfD. Toby2023 (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One example of a secondary source which does indeed talk about the character is "Catastrophic Future(s)", which on pp. 85-86 has significant analysis of the character and his role. A little less serious, The Mad Scientist Hall of Fame has a multi-page chapter on Farnsworth. Daranios (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also love Futurama. Running my usual source check: Found one on ScreenRant to back up the family tree. My attempts to search on Google Scholar have been jammed by the existence of real scholar Charles Hubert Farnsworth. Trying again with "Professor Farnsworth" "Futurama" and getting a good number of hits: [11]. I believe enough sourcing exists to establish notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Okay, this Law Review article looks like it covers the Professor's adventures particularly. I put it as a source in the article because the abstract covers the basic facts of who Farnsworth is, but anyone who can get through that paywall could use it more extensively: Justin S. Wales. "FUTURLAWMA: 21st Century Solutions to 31st Century Problems". U. Miami L. Rev. (Abstract). 87. Retrieved November 17, 2024. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Okay, I have now added a total of four sources, three of them scholarly works that focus on this character specifically. There are more at the link above. I would like for someone to access the full text of the two that are paywalled, but for now, I have used them to support information freely visible in their abstracts. The third scholarly work is available in full text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @Darkfrog24:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found. Daranios (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Darkfrog24's sources. Toughpigs (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources which show SIGCOV and notability.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the recently found and added sources. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deathstroke (Marvel Comics)

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

The DC Comics version is way more notable than this one. He isn't notable at all, the article has no publication history and only has one section, in which it says he fought and was defeated by Spider-Woman. He only has two sources, one is a list of supervillains, and another a dead link of the comic issue itself. His article is a complete mess. Toby2023 (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D. The encyclopedia entry by Rovin seems like a descent enough source, but I see no reason we couldn't cover the character in a list.4meter4 (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Shellwood (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per 4meter4. BOZ (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is quite literally no information that is mergeable here beyond a mention of the character existing, and the character is so obscure (A search yields only two actual appearances in the several decades of Marvel history, with one of them being incredibly minor) that he doesn't even warrant a mention. Not every one-off needs to be accounted for on the character list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pokelego999 - Utterly non-notable one-shot character. The character is a complete failure of the WP:GNG and is so completely minor that even including him on a character list would be ascribing more notability to him than actually exists. As stated above, not every single minor comic character that ever existed needs to be included in a character list, and this one is a very good example of one that should not. Rorshacma (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pokelego999; existence does not equal notability, enough for a list. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pokelego999. There are sources that provide WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs at best. I would support a redirect per WP:ATD, if editors can agree on a suitable target. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and the suggestion of @4meter4:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sven (Voltron)

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

Unfortunately, as i am a Voltron fan myself, this character fails WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE found nothing, it only talks about the shows he is from. This is something i didn't want to do, but i have to nominate it. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same issues as him.:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Comics and animation, and Anime and manga. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep for The Rise of Voltron as it is an episode and not a character and does not belong in this bundled nomination. It should be nominated separately. Merge all others to List of Voltron characters per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is an episode, but i still included this because it is Voltron after all. It doesn't pass WP:GNG. Toby2023 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but it's best to bundle nominations where the outcomes have a shared ending. In general, the bundling process is best avoided when articles are not very close in design. A charcter page is very different then a television episode page.4meter4 (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close WP:NPASR, but make sure that WP:BUNDLE is scrupulously followed per the above. If not, this is more likely than not going to end up as a train wreck. Better to restart clean with separate noms for characters and episode(s) rather than hoping it doesn't go off the rails. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into List of Voltron characters besides The Rise of Voltron which should be deleted. Cynical attempts to cite WP:TRAINWRECK don't work unless it has actually become a trainwreck, and forcing it to become one doesn't count. Bundled nominations are perfectly within the rules as long as they make sense, though I agree the episode ought to have been nominated separately as it is not related. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek: New Frontier characters

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

The list contains only primary sources. WP:NLIST requires independent reliable sources that discuss the characters as a group. I haven't found any. Mika1h (talk) 17:42, 16 November 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 Lists. Mika1h (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Star Trek: New Frontier per WP:ATD. Not all of the content should be merged, but that article relies on this one to cover the characters so some of this content should be moved to that one.4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know the series, but Scholar finds content for Calhoun in this context in Strange Novel Worlds: Essays on Star Trek Tie-In Fiction by Caron, ISBN 978-1476653358. I can see two of three hits in Preview, which looks like a solid three pages of commentary on the character pp. 198-200. Calhoun is also mentioned in a 2018 CBR listicle of best Trek captains. That's kinda thin, but there's a raft of Memory Alpha and other Trek Fandom, non-RS, book reviews, and other associated content with which one could certainly build a Calhoun article if one were to be found notable. Merging is obviously better than deletion, but I'm questioning whether other characters might be as notable as Calhoun, and, if so, whether there is enough RS commentary on the characters such that multiple would be notable. PAGEDECIDE would allow us to keep a list instead of two notable but thin character articles. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... and now I see Mackenzie Calhoun already has a standalone article, albeit one not previously WP:SS linked to the list. So, one of our options (with appropriate notice and feedback, of course) is merging Calhoun's standalone article to the list or to the series article. Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as three primary sources do not an article make (after 16.33 years, no less), nor suffice to be added to another article. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying Star Trek: New Frontier is not notable and hence should not exist either? Your comment on primary sources not sufficing for addition to another article isn't policy based, as primary sources can be used when non-controversial on a notable topic. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they're saying that it's not enough to build an article on by itself. Articles need reliable, in-depth citations from secondary sources. We can use primary sources, but that needs secondary coverage to back it up. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let other editors speak for themselves, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Fourthords: in case they would like to clarify themselves. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I follow. Notability is not sui generis, nor is it inherited. Regardless of the notability of Star Trek: New Frontier, the discussion here is if the characters in Star Trek: New Frontier are notable as a set. If the only sources providing commentary, details, insights, etc. on the characters in Star Trek: New Frontier are primary, then we should not have an article on them, as they are not notable independently of the show they are part of. In this case, there is no reason why the article on the show should not include them. If it is a question of article length (which should be supported by reliable, independent sources), then the characters must be of such little importance - as evidenced by the fact that other parts of the show have received so much commentary or analysis but not the characters - that the portion on characters can be reduced to a very brief section. Shazback (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Star Trek: New Frontier per WP:ATD. There are certainly secondary sources discussing characters like that provided above, or The Sex Is Out of This World, where there is in-depth discussion on Burgoyne (and other characters reactions). But currently I don't have the time to look myself if there is enough to fullfill WP:LISTN or not. Daranios (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anxiety (Inside Out)

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

This article recently sprung up, but not in a good way. I find Joy more notable to have an article, but Anxiety doesn't. She currently fails WP:GNG and doesn't have much to say. She is a fairly new character, i would suggest a redirect to either Inside Out (franchise) or Inside Out 2. Toby2023 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the sources already cited in the article establish notability, especially Berlatsky, Noah (2024-06-14). "Opinion: Why Anxiety from 'Inside Out 2' is such a relatable character to me". CNN.McYeee (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Comics and animation, and Disney. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Inside Out 2. The article does not have enough content to warrant a new page. Just because sources exist does not mean this page is needed. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either of the two articles mentioned by the nominator. It lacks notability as some of the references are sort of a review of the movie instead of a special feature about the character. — Mister Banker (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the film, I don't see SIGCOV for the character yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean merge [12] and [13] give better analysis towards the character, but I cannot discern between the analysis of the character and Riley/whole movie, so these more up to interpretation, therefore I'm a weak/lean !merge. I think this article can exist with more analysis and I'll change my !vote if more comes in. Conyo14 (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there was a discussion already about this see Talk:Inside Out 2/Archive 1#Create your own article for Anxiety where a user was trying get someone else to make them the article, I replied I was busy on the box office records by inside out 2 draft but they keep on asking someone to make it for them i originally said I would look into it when I get the time but I think other characters (for example Sadness) probably is more noteworthy so I created a draft for that user to work on the draft currently here Draft:Anxiety (Inside Out) Fanoflionking3 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fanoflionking3: I was the one who made that discussion a few months ago, but I was not the one who created the article. The real author is @MrKaraRocks:, I was interested in creating it months ago but as time passed (and you didn't finish the other work) I asked for the interest. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Inside Out 2 article, there is no image of Anxiety from Inside Out 2 on this article. 73.216.182.68 (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is no image doesn't mean it meets WP:GNG. What matters is the sources that meet GNG, not the images. Toby2023 (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I came to tell you that I am making improvements to the article so that at least it will not be deleted. Now I want to ask @Toby2023: what he thinks about the corrections I am making. I look forward to everyone's answers and help. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can do so, i would like to see you try, if you can do a good job, we can close it as a keep. Toby2023 (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about notability, something that cannot be changed by improvements to the article, only demonstration of sources. If you have found new reliable sources, you should share them here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: These are the sources I have consulted [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] and they are reliable. I will see if I can expand the article further to avoid it being deleted. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Zero sigcov. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time