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

Honoré Lechasseur

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

This is a character so incredibly obscure that I didn't even know we had an article on this guy until today, somehow has two separate notability tags on his article, and is lucky to receive two pageviews a day according to statistics. A source search yields quite literally nothing except for the books the character starred in. There is no coverage on this character, and is better off being redirected towards Time Hunter, the series in which the character stars. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Time Hunter (though that article is, itself, in pretty terrible shape). There are no valid sources currently in the article, and searches did not turn up any coverage in reliable sources about this character. Rorshacma (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Time Hunter, which should be developed to basic standards before diving into character subarticles. Nothing here but OR and PLOT. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per sgeureka. If the topic doesn't satisfy WP:N, there aren't enough sources to fix WP:OR and WP:PLOT problems. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bernice Summerfield characters

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

A list of characters from media associated with the Bernice Summerfield character. A brief BEFORE yields very little hits for anything related to the supporting cast, and the list itself fails LISTN and Verifiability, as Summerfield is herself the only character with an article and the rest of the article is not cited. I'm admittedly uncertain what to do with the article's (Very brief and short) collection of contents, as I am not familiar with how recurring or important these characters are to the narrative, but a potential AtD could be a merge to Bernice Summerfield (Where there is a similar characters list for audio characters) or a straight up deletion, depending on what is decided. Either way, this list seems dedicated to a rather irrelevant and small subgroup of characters, of which a separate list does not seem justifiable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one/two lines per character to a new Bernice Summerfield#Characters section. I agree this doesn't need a separate article/list, but a little more context for the audio character table would be nice. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively per Sgeureka. This fails WP:LISTN. It's already covered at Bernice Summerfield#Characters, which is a good redirect/merge target per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the sofa

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

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that is promoting a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM. WP:BEFORE does show that this phrase has been used in passing by a few journalists, but fails WP:SIGCOV. The article is seriously padded by editors' WP:OR observations expressing excitement that they have seen the phrase used by a journalist. Once you clean up the WP:OR, there is very little to keep (maybe a redirect to List of Doctor Who home video releases#Blu-ray). Jontesta (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.Jontesta (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Who#Viewership, and merge only the reliable sources into a sentence or two. Svampesky (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svampesky This phrase is discussed at that same article, but at Doctor Who#History. This could still be merged but that section would be a better target. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Doctor Who#History where the topic is already discussed. This is definitely a notable expression and phrase but there isn't really enough to support a whole article on the subject, unfortunately. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Doctor Who#History, per all. I don't think this meets WP:N, and the limited coverage can be summarized somewhere else. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doctor Who#History - Definitely a subject that would make way more sense discussed in the context of the broader topic, per WP:NOPAGE. Rorshacma (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains in VR Troopers

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

This is a non notable spinout from List of VR Troopers characters. Both lists fail WP:SIGCOV but we have to start somewhere. The other list would be an acceptable redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the "Major Villains" to the appropriate section of List of VR Troopers characters. As said in the nomination, that list is, itself, devoid of reliable sources and could potentially eventually be merged into the main VR Troopers article, but for now, condensing it down to a single character list would be the appropriate first step in figuring out the best way to present the information. Everything beyond the "Major Villains" section are just minor characters and one shot "Monsters of the Week", so should not be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per Rorshacma. We shouldn't have multiple non-notable lists about the same topic, but a selective merge would allow editors to re-organize this material. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with it's section at List of VR Troopers characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who robots

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

WP:OR without independent sources or any indication of notability. There isn't anything other than a WP:DIRECTORY of Doctor Who episodes that might feature a robot. Wikipedia doesn't support repeated WP:SYNTH lists where editors research patterns across television episodes. Editors should fix the main character list instead of expanding their flaws across multiple faulty lists. Jontesta (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Deleting a well-established article that has been refined and improved by numerous contributors, and which many users find valuable, undermines the collective effort and the utility it provides.

2. Wikipedia's scope has expanded, allowing for more inclusive content. Articles that were deleted a decade ago due to non-notability are now encouraged and considered relevant.

3. While source citations were less emphasized when I initially created the article, contributors have since verified and corrected any inaccuracies, ensuring the article's reliability. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well established articles don't exactly get a free pass from discussions about their quality and issues they may have on the website. They need to be verifiable and notable to continue to exist on the website.
While true, that is primarily due to new sources being discovered allowing for more revivals on articles where that sourcing did not exist at the time, not due to any laxing of restrictions.
There are only four citations on the article, and many entries are unsourced and are only a redirect to another topic they're a part of. Even if this is kept, it needs a major overhaul to verify its contents as a whole.

Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are there any articles on robotic characters in the various books discussing Doctor Who's science? I recall seeing at least one or two, but searching for them proves difficult given that most searches for "Doctor Who robot" tends to just pull results from the episode Robot (Doctor Who). If nothing else can be found I'd suggest a partial merge to list of List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens, as several of these characters (Such as Autons, Yeti, and Quarks) do have associations with several entries currently on the list, with some of the robots that are considered species potentially being included in that list as well (Such as the Roboforms, Sandminer Robots, Mechonoids, for example). Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging the major robots to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens is a good idea. Toughpigs (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively, per Toughpigs. Some of these have WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE, which fails WP:LISTN as such a narrow spinoff of characters. If we're looking for one list to cover these characters, List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens seems like it's constructed in a neutral way that's consistent with the sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marlinspike Hall

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

This article was tagged for speedy deletion four years ago (by User:Piotrus). The original rationale still applies:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

The tag was removed without addressing any of the issues. Despite the request for discussion, I could not find one.

I agree with the rationale for deletion. WP:BEFORE only shows official Tin Tin materials and other licensed sources. Jontesta (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I oppose the proposal for deletion. Tin Tin has been a notable figure in international popular culture over a very extended period and Marlinspike has provided a comprehensive character development and event framework for much of this time. Several of the Tin Tin "adventures" are set predominantly or entirely in this environment. Wikipedia page view, edit and page watcher statistics appear substantive for a short but well written and attractively illustrated article. Citations and source references are adequate for a fictional subject. Removal would frankly appear to be a pointless and potentially unpopular exercise. If however the consensus is for deletion then the alternative of merger should be given serious consideration. Buistr (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, about the speedy; a fictional location is not included among the valid speedy deletion candidate categories, so that was never the correct approach. As for notability, "Moulinsart" or "Chateau de Moulinsart" are among the most notable fictional locations in Belgium and France, instantly recognisable to millions. We have whole books like this, "The daily life at Marlinspike", which talks about Tintin in general, but also at length about both the village of Marlinspike and the castle. If there is a good merge target perhaps this can be merged, but deletion is not warranted. Fram (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment currently, I am leaning towards a Redirect to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. All of the sources discussing Marlinspike are official guidebooks, at least from what I can see here. However, I do not know if the nom or anyone else has partaken in a source search in French sources. I would not know where to start unfortunately, but a search through there may prove more fruitful than an English search given Tintin's ubiquity in Belgium. I won't be changing my vote unless something is found, but I do feel there may be promise that hasn't been uncovered yet. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very notable topic, has been covered (directly and in depth) in reliable sources.....as any basic search with the French name can confirm -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Belgium, and France. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the French sources demonstrate the importance of the location in the collective imagination, and count towards notability. Toughpigs (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Little Pony villains

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

WP:OR without independent sources, or any indication of notability. There is already a list of List of My Little Pony characters with its own errors and problems. Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to arbitrarily make repeated articles about the same topic unless there is WP:SIGCOV to justify it. Jontesta (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The listed characters from the older series appear to be all one-shot villains that appeared for a single movie/storyline, that have no notability or coverage in reliable sources, and are covered in the main articles for the movies/TV specials they appeared in where applicable. The reoccurring villains from the newer series are already covered on the appropriate character lists and articles for their respective series. This current list is completely unsourced, and I am not finding any sources that would indicate that the topic of villains from throughout the multiple iterations of the MLP franchise are notable as its own group or set. Rorshacma (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Toys. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of My Little Pony characters. This article is a great labor of love but I really don't see anything indicating any independent notability for it as its own list. jp×g 🗯️ 07:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:SPLITLIST might apply. Redirect and merge seems warranted anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of My Little Pony characters. One list of characters per show is enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Wcquidditch. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Also, similiar to the case of List of Doctor Who villains despite this being of a better quality. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of My Little Pony characters, per WP:CONSENSUS. It makes sense to WP:AVOIDSPLIT or even delete, but redirect would preserve the history, and allow selective merging through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge: to List of My Little Pony characters. I don't think a split list is warranted. The main list article needs clean up as well which would help keep the article size down. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of My Little Pony characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of miscellaneous fictional animals

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

This list is going too far into WP:INDISCRIMINATE and doesn't pass WP:NLIST. (1) Most listed animals don't have stand-alone articles, making their inclusion of "notable" fictional animals quite doubtful. (2) It's "miscellaneous" fictional species, i.e. most listed animals don't have anything in common besides being of an uncommon species, i.e. List of Xs not in list of A, B or C. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This seems very much a technical WP:SPLIT purely based on Wikipedia-internal considerations: We have many Lists of fictional animals, and those whose type does not appear on any of them land here as "miscellaneous". The topic "fictional animals" is clearly notably. So if we want to keep the individual entries of "miscellaneous" animals out of Lists of fictional animals for reasons of readability, this would be a WP:SIZESPLIT and therefore the notability requirement would be fullfilled by the parent topic. Personally, I prefer to merge (the relevant content) completely to Lists of fictional animals.
As for the WP:INDISCRIMINATE criticism, first of all it makes little sense to me that this list here duplicates list-links from Lists of fictional animals. So if kept separately, these should be trimmed. And otherwise defining an inclusion critereon solves this issue, the most simple being to only include notable fictional animals (not listed elsewhere). This may mean a major trim, but there would still be a lot of entries left for this list to make sense as a list of the purpose of navigation. Daranios (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have trimmed the article of entries without stand-alone articles per your suggestion (though I have not removed the links to the other lists). TompaDompa (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, I have now removed the list-links as well. TompaDompa (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TompaDompa: The list is now down to the content I wanted to preserve in one way or another, an inclusion critereon is not only spelled out but also implemented, so that this is in no way WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Size-wise the list is now in my view both long enough to be viable as a stand-alone article and small enough to be fitted into Lists of fictional animals, so this comes down to an editorial decision. Daranios (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect if unsourced information doesn't fit in an existing article the answer is to clean it up, not dump it into an article that fails Wikipedia policies. This is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE segmentation of a badly referenced list. Jontesta (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not well sourced, so it should not be merged. This topic does not meet LISTN and the entries have barely anything in common. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jontesta and QuicoleJR: By that argument, all lists about fictional animals I've seen should be deleted, because sourcing is very much the same as here. Simply trimming things down to blue-linked entries solves the problem of sourcing, as the information is then present at another Wikipedia article. A list for the purpose of navigation does not strictly need references for that reason. And then, things are longer WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. Daranios (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think "miscellaneous fictional animals" meets LISTN, and the souring was only an argument against a merge, not an argument for deleting. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR: I was also concerned about merging, not keeping: Lists of fictional animals also does not have any sourcing, naturally, and does not need it because its purpose is navigation. Ideally it allows anyone to successively browse to any fictional animal featured on Wikipedia. Except if this list here is deleted, it doesn't anymore. Any fictional animal which does not happen to belong to a larger group, where it was decided to have a separate list, would then be excluded from this type of navigation. I believe that would be less-than-ideal, an (albeit small) disservice to the usability of Wikipedia. So what would be the reason not to find a way to make the blue-linked entries here available in this navigation scheme? Daranios (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the examples in WP:INDISCRIMINATE is even remotely applicable here. Deletion votes need to have proper reasoning. — Timwi (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Rampant deletionism at its finest. As already noted, there are lists of fictional animals such as dogs, cats, etc. To just remove all of the animals that happen to be of a species that is rarer in fiction just because you don’t like the term miscellaneous for being “indiscriminate” is just silly. Stop the deletionism, keep Wikipedia complete and useful!! — Timwi (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. This was a WP:SPLIT. We should really not dictate that stuff be split out of an article due to size constraints and then twenty years later mosey up and say "uh, why is there this lil lonely article sitting here, better delete it". jp×g 🗯️ 06:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article massively reduced since nomination, only list fictional animals with their own Wikipedia articles that aren't listed in the other lists at Category:Lists of fictional animals by type. Dream Focus 17:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and fails WP:NLIST TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just merge it to lists of fictional animals, in its current state. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to lists of fictional animals per TompaDompa's changes. A few sources aren't a pass for multiple WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists, but one main list would probably meet WP:NLIST. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JPxG. After the reductions during the AFD this is fine. It might be possible to merge to Lists of fictional animals, but the naive approach would not improve that article; there is no need to mandate such a merge. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time War (Doctor Who)

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

Wikipedia is not the TARDIS data core. This article is a nonsense. It is written as though describing a real conflict. Most, if not all, of the references are primary sources/the actual episodes of the show where this war is mentioned, including the BBC (the show's production company), Big Finish Productions (the production company for the audio adaptation), BBC Books (the publisher for book adaptations), and Doctor Who fan sites. From my research, all sources related to this fictional-war originate either those primary sources, or from standard run-of-the-mill coverage to promote an episode, with only passing mention of the fictional-war, and no analysis of it. ~~Delete!~~ Per Pokelego999's comment, I'm amending to Merge with Doctor Who (mainly the non-primary-sourced material). Svampesky (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC), amended 02:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Svampesky (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage is a bit buried in the depths of promo material, but a brief search yielded some results. Reviews of The Day of the Doctor (The 50th Anniversary special which got a lot more in-depth coverage than most episodes) tend to yield bits (Such as this AV Club source). I found a Gizmodo source discussing the War in its entirety, though its coverage is smattered throughout the article. This book has a whole chapter on the War, while this book seems to discuss it in association with The Doctor's character a fair bit. A brief glance at this book and this book yields promise, as do a few hits for books in regards to Psychology about the Doctor in association with the War, but admittedly these I can't fully access enough to judge. Given the Time War's large role in the narrative of Doctor Who and its effect on the Doctor's character, I'd warrant there's probably more discussing its role within the context of the show, but I only did a brief search, so I'd be happy for other editors to also do searches to see what else I didn't see. Either way, the Time War definitely seems to have coverage, if scattered, that shows its notability, though as the nom said the article definitely needs a rewrite at some point in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research. I've amended my nomination to merge. [T]he Time War's large role in the narrative of Doctor Who and its effect on the Doctor's character, yes; but outside of the Doctor Who fictional-universe, I still don't think it passes any of the points of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV for it to have a stand-alone article. Svampesky (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know that's a non sequitur, right? Nothing is notable inside or outside of any fictional universe; they're either notable, or they are not. We don't have to have documentation of time war reenactors in order to keep the article... we just need independent reliable sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. In point of fact, "real world" manifestations such as toys are often ignored entirely as non-independent (the same people are making money off of them...) when assessing the notability of fictional topics that CAN be so manifested. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. One of the books you cited The Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who (ISBN: 9781849909389) is published by BBC Books, which is a subsidiary of the production company of the show. Svampesky (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I'm unaware of the circumstances with the BBC (Since its publishing is largely unrelated to the original show) so I'm not sure if it has a use case or not. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although commentary is needed in the article, that can be done with the sources suggested above, even if discounting the BBC book, and therefore notability is established. Daranios (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either History of the Time Lords#The Time War (sketchy notability itself) or Time Lord (where it is mentioned throughout). I am having difficulty imagining how this article would even look if written with an encyclopedic out-of universe approach (MOS:REALWORLD): Plot doesn't have production design or casting. In short: I believe this topic is unfixable as a standalone article, even with the sources provided above. I wouldn't mind selective merging. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Time War was a mostly off-screen event, so casting information is irrelevant. Either way, I'd propose an organization of:

-Developmental information (I know it exists as I've seen bits of it floating around before and I'm aware of a few sources I'd need to double check, but I'd need to do a more thorough search than what I've done above)

-Basic summary of the event, which could probably condense the information in the article to a readable state.

-Reception and Analysis of the War's role in the show's narrative.

I'm confused what you mean by the article being entirely unfixable. It needs a massive rewrite, but it's not undoable with more in-depth rewrites and research. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My nomination still stands as 'Merge with Doctor Who', but I am willing to collaborate on a Draft: of this article if the outcome of this AfD is 'Draftify' and explore additional secondary sources with other editors who are interested in contributing. Please, drop a message on my talk page to notify me if this happens. Svampesky (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The Time War is literally synonymous with the plot of Doctor Who. It is what the entire series is about. We already have Doctor Who, History of Doctor Who, History of the Time Lords, Time Lord, and Whoniverse to deal with this information. Several of those also have major gaps in sourcing. Do we really need multiple poorly written articles about the same thing? Please let's start with one article with independent reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't true; the Time War is a relatively small part of the overall story of Doctor Who. Toughpigs (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rule out Doctor Who and History of Doctor Who, as those are primarily out of universe production information. In the case of the Time War, analysis of its role wouldn't be fitting to place in an article like one of those. Whoniverse additionally is more focused on the actual umbrella brand these days. I'm partial to one of the Time Lord articles should it come down to that, but I'd have to take a closer look to see which is better (I'd honestly AfD History of the Time Lords as well- that article is in a very bad state and can easily be condensed to the original Time Lord article) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete checking through the article shows there is nothing there to assert WP:SIGCOV. Sources are nothing but mainly of BBC and affliated sources, per WP:PRIMARY. It maybe notable to the Who fanbase but is it notable for Wikipedia. Articles like this needs to be put out of its misery, fans should be reminded that Wikipedia is not Fandom. WP:ATD will be a redirect SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on the sources listed above? Given your rationale is mostly focused on the current state, I'm curious about the above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Books is WP:PRIMARY. gizmodo is fine, that's one in. As with The Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who, I don't know how much is it about the subject to save it from deletion. As with Religion and Doctor Who, I feel there is a small amount is given to the subject. I feel there is not enough to save itself from a merger, which I think is the best outcome. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can't do further research on the subject later, given my search was rather light. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for the time being; WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article has been tagged as needing attention, so a good-faith attempt to fix the article should be the first step. If, after removing everything that doesn't meet the required standards, the article still doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV, then we can return to the question of deleting or merging it. I don't think we can discuss merging now as the article is far too long for a simple merge. So I come back, again, to - fix the article first. (ETA: forgot to say, WP:TARDIS is an essay, not a guideline; for a convincing deletion argument, I would like to see actual WP guidelines referenced as well, to clearly demonstrate the official standards not met).

JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JustAnotherCompanion: The notices have been on the page for over two years. As I said above, my nomination remains; but I'm willing to collaborate with editors if this AfD closes as draftify and we restart it from scratch in the Draft: space and work with secondary sources. Svampesky (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found some more sources including this one. This one has some scattered bits on how it affected the Doctor's psychology, this one has some brief bits on its production history, this seems to be promising but I can't scan it entirely. The main problem I'm having with my search is that there are a lot of hits but I can't gauge coverage due to the amount of paywalls blocking me (Especially with Scholar, where there a lot of promising hits on things like war and psychology). It seems highly promising nonetheless given what I can preview though, but if anyone can gauge any of the Scholar sources I'd greatly appreciate it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an AfD outcome per the above additional sourcing. No objection to further merging as a consensus discussion (but not forced by AfD) outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a small consensus to Keep this article but even supporters of this position agree that the article needs an overhaul. But I doubt it can be rewritten during the period of this AFD though. Please review sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Time Lord, per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PRESERVE. The sources heavily cover this as part of their coverage of the Time Lords, and I don't see separate WP:SIGCOV for different articles covering basically the same thing.
Most !votes consent to a merge/redirect. SpacedFarmer and the AFD nominator are delete !votes who have suggested a redirect. Pokelego999 and JClemens are keep !votes who are considering merge targets. JustAnotherCompanion would accept a potential merge, but they have concerns about doing it too quickly or clumsily. The easiest way to reach a consensus is to close this as a merge, and allow the tag to sit there as long as needed to import anything that isn't already covered at Time Lord. The amount of content to WP:PRESERVE can be determined through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above, Merge/Redirect to Time Lord. MohReddy (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My previous relisting comment stands. I do not see a consensus to Merge or Redirect and I don't see those arguing to Keep as suggesting it as their choice, at best, Merge/Redirect is preferable to Deletion but I see very limited support for Deletion. Even the nominator is suggesting Merge over Deletion. Right now, there is No consensus but I'd still like to see a review of sources brought up in this discussion. Of course, closers work independently and another closer might see this situation differently but this is what I see from reviewing this discussion a second time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time