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

List of fictional detectives for younger readers

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST, there's no reason to split List of fictional detectives into a list specifically for "younger readers". Di (they-them) (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Fictional elements, Literature, and Lists. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No valid reason for a spin-out and no indication that this fictional concept is notable. A redirect would not be viable as any of the other target lists include many subjects outside of the "younger readers" section and lack a dedicated subsection for them, which would be detrimental to reader navigation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science Room

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

Lack of notability. Note that most of the article is effectively unsourced & tagged as such. Surely if there was any true notability for this lump of fancruft a cite or two could have been whipped up. TheLongTone (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is effectively unsourced and I don't see a way this passes WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yavin

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

This article is a non notable fork of Yavin 4 where the Battle of Yavin actually takes place, making it the third article covering basically the same material. Most source talk about Yavin 4 with only trivial mentions for Yavin itself. (Probably because Yavin appears on screen for a few seconds.) Jontesta (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. Jontesta (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yavin 4, the actual important location in the franchise, and very likely what people are actually looking for if they search for "Yavin". Per WP:NOPAGE, these should really be covered together, and Yavin 4 is the obvious primary topic here - case in point, the vast majority of the content of this article is actually talking about Yavin 4. There are some sourced bits of information here, such as the history of its development in the first part of the "Depiction" section, that are not present in the Yavin 4 article, so a bit of a merge should occur. Rorshacma (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yavin 4 seems sensible (Oddly, I had no idea this latter article even existed!). However, the Yavin 4 article seems to be far too heavy on WP:INUNIVERSE material that should be cut. This is not Wookieepedia and articles of this type should mainly be concerned with writing, filming locations etc. The Yavin article has a few non-free screenshots from the movies that illustrate the topic and it would be nice if some of these could be retained. The fair-use rationales for each image will have to be updated accordingly. Cnbrb (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rorschacma. This isn't separately notable and can be covered in Yavin 4 as the main topic with WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pandoran biosphere

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

Fork of Fictional universe of Avatar. We do not need two articles about the same thing. Both are doubtfully notable based on trivial mentions but I believe that Fictional universe of Avatar has more upside as more sources talk generally about the setting of Avatar. Jontesta (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 02:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I think this might be the more notable topic, the species are the main discussed aspect of the Avatar series. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Fictional universe of Avatar, especially the Na'vi and creation stuff. The rest is excessive in-universe info. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Fictional universe of Avatar per others, no real evidence I could find that the world Pandora or its biosphere is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Excessive WP:FANCRUFT with little MOS:REALWORLD info; this is not Fandom/Wikia. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gao Village Arc

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

Non notable fork of Gao Village (which is also questionable notable). Jontesta (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if either of these are notable I think it would be the literary arc and not the location. Journey to the West is important enough that I would be surprised if there was not discussion of this section of it (if it constitutes an arc, that is) PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's two chapters of a book, violating WP:NOT#PLOT. If important, it should first be covered in Journey to the West and then spun out WP:SPINOUT, but currently it's not even mentioned there. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sgeureka. WP:BEFORE doesn't give WP:SIGCOV. This hasn't even earned mention in the main article, so it's premature to start splitting out individual subplots, per WP:NOT#PLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, but for reasons other than notability… there are zero source references given in this article, only the primary text itself. This seems very much like WP:OR to me. Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfree

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

As a fan of the original 151 Pokemon and someone who enjoyed Bye Bye, Butterfree myself, I went over the sources carefully as I really want this to be notable. Unfortunately, it just doesn't seem that way at all and it doesn't feel like the article's recreation was justified. Arguably its best source is from CBR, which is considered "unreliable" post 2016. Everything else is pretty trivial, about the episode rather than the Pokemon itself, or from large general lists of Pokemon which don't indicate that particular one is uniquely notable. Even with the paper comparing bug Pokemon to real-world insects, I am not convinced GNG is passed here. I realize I may get hit with the "you nominated it the day it was recreated" argument, but the article did not have an "under construction" banner so I must assume that the creator believes it is in a finished state. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being about the episode does not mean that notability cannot be gleaned for Butterfree from the discussion of the episode and commentary on Butterfree's role in it. The Gamer discusses Ash's relationship with Butterfree and what its return could symbolize, and simply being a part of a greater article does not mean that the discussion of the urban legend surrounding it and Venonat is not a demonstration of notability (per WP:GNG). The fact that the episode is a large part of why people talk about Butterfree so much is immaterial to the fact that they do. There is also commentary on Butterfree's role in the game as an early evolver, as was it the subject of commentary as being Ash's first Pokémon caught. I also added this article, which discusses extensively Butterfree's relationship with Ash in the anime. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect to List of generation I Pokémon#Butterfree per nom - Most of the sources are game guides, extremely trivial mentions, and content-farm style "Top Ten" lists. The few that look half-way decent are just reviews/summaries of a handful of specific episodes of the anime that featured Ash's Butterfree, with no real discussion about the actual fictional species, and even those are not from the most reliable of sources. I also have to mention that there looks to be quite a bit of WP:REFBOMBing going on here. I already mentioned the trivial nature of the coverage of Butterfree in a lot of the included references, but some of these are literally one sentence mentions of that Pokemon and some, such as the first and fourth ones currently listed, don't mention Butterfree at all. Overall, I am not seeing anything to justify this specific Pokemon being split out into an independent article, and should be Redirected to its section at the Gen I Pokemon list. Rorshacma (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make the point that the sources you're referring to as not mentioning Butterfree are only used to verify basic information about what a Pokémon is, how they work, and how the games work. Not mentioning Butterfree does not make them not useful for this article, and the same citations are used on Raichu, a featured article. As far as top 10 lists go, there is nothing to suggest that merely being in a top 10 list makes coverage less significant. The Gamer, Crunchyroll, and the entomologist all provide significant coverage on the subject, even if Butterfree is not the main subject of their respective works. In the latter's case, they may be analyzing the Bug type as a whole, but they do not give each Pokémon equal weight. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sources not mentioning the subject can be useful for an article, but they also do nothing to help establish any notability for the subject, which is the issue at stake here. Its the sheer number of references being used here that either don't mention Buterfree or have a one-sentence namedrop that gives the impression of a WP:REFBOMB. As far as "Top Ten" style lists go, putting aside the fact that these are often from content farms that are generally not considered reliable sources, they also generally do not actually contain significant coverage. Take the IGN list included here, for example - its three sentences long, and its "coverage" of Butterfree is simply "Bye Bye Butterfree was sad", which is not significant coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? No one claimed those sources showed notability, they're there to verify facts, how is this refbombing in any capacity? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is the first two points of the WP:REFBOMB essay - an overkill of citations that briefly namecheck the subject without actually being about the subject, and citations that don't mention the subject and are presented to verify a fact that is not related to the subject's notability. Keep in mind that WP:REFBOMB is just an essay, not a policy - I am simply using it to demonstrate the larger issue - the fact that so many trivial citations are needed to be used to try to provide references for the article shows the lack of genuine significant coverage in reliable sources that would allow Buttefree to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: Something I feel needs clarification, by the "first and fourth one", are you talking about the references in the article itself or the reception section? Because references 1 and 4 are part of the "copypasta" used in these articles to establish terminology and context to the reader.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man:Yeah, I'm talking about the "copypasta" part that just has the general overview of what a Pokémon is. Which, yeah, I understand is needed for context, but still means about 7 of the citations in this article are not about the subject of the article, which combined with the fact that another 8 are of the "single word mentions" variety means that the article has a lot of citations - but more than half are not actually on the subject of the article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: That doesn't constitute a refbomb in this case though, that's a section agreed upon after multiple discussions at WT:VGCHAR to help readers understand these articles, and survived the FAC process just fine. Holding them against an article like this is realistically pretty unfair, as refbombing revolves around unnecessary sources in an article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I apologize, as I did not mean it to be a slight against the editors of the article or to imply any intentional wrongdoing on their part. It was mainly just to preempt the argument I occasionally see pop up in AFDs where someone will cite the number of references in an article as evidence of notability, without examining the amount of coverage of the topic in those references. It was basically just me saying "despite the number of sources present, the coverage of the subject within a lot of them is not significant". I'll try to use better wording in the future. Rorshacma (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an aside, is there any reason why CBR is unreliable in a way that other Valnet sources are not? I believe that general consensus is that being owned by Valnet is not disqualifying, and the article used here was published prior to CBR's layoffs and use of AI. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 30#Comic Book Resources, it seems to be due to a significant degradation of content compared to their old self, and the fact they didn't cover video game subjects until after Valnet bought them, which, additionally, was when their old staff practically all left the moment Valnet bought them. Admittedly I do feel I disagree in its complete unreliability, since it's about equal in terms of quality to the usual Game Rant/Screen Rant, but that was the rationale provided during its initial discussion. I feel if its status should be debated, another discussion at the Sources page would be warranted, but that is likely outside the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a key thing being missed here is the wording "generally" vs strictly unreliable. We've had discussions regarding Valnet afterward that are visible in the archives on the subject of editorial pieces, where the concerns with CBR were strictly about churnalism and AI usage accusations (the latter of which Valnet confirmed they have no plans to use). The article cited here however is an editorial opinion piece, and should be fine for usage.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep While I would appreciate stronger sourcing, I feel what's here shows some potential avenues of discussion that help illustrate the character's notability. In the anime's regard, its character arc and the impact it had on viewers is definitely commented on frequently even years after its exit from the show. There's a dissertation here, which while brief actually covers how reactions to the anime helped affect the games itself later on. There's also discussion here on how Butterfree leaving continues a theme of loss and acceptance for children to understand. Additionally there is some design commentary, and while I'd like that to be stronger (then again, let's be real it's a butterfly), the avenue of its evolution being inconsistent and how fans have attempted to rationalize such and the importance of such rationalization is talked about in a published paper here. Now this is just from a cursory glance online thus far, but with how quickly I found these in scholarly works I feel there's enough to this subject to warrant it as a stand alone, it's just a bit in the rough.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't access one of them, the others you posted are only 1-2 sentences long when talking about Butterfree, so it kinda backs up the extremely trivial mention/REFBOMB idea here. This feels like it's going into a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument unless you can outright demonstrate several reliable, significant sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More I'm suggesting one could build a "death by 1000 cuts" approach of using the smaller sources providing unique thoughts on a matter observations to support bigger sources in the article, which we've seen in the past can work. It's a weaker argument I'll admit, but it's why I prefaced this with a weak keep.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the "Weak" part after the recent addition and work on the article and some contemplation. Additionally I feel the "refbomb" argument is a misnomer, as it's being used apparently against the references in the article as a whole instead of the reception section, and the sources cited there are providing some commentary as to why the character matters particularly due to its anime characterization which is still valid.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added this source to the reception (and used it to reduce the number of citations by replacing a source for this in the Appearances section). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst I wish there was more here on the species, I think the article does enough to help the subject pass GNG with the mentions of the anime. From the way I read it and see the sources in the reception, I believe the mentions of Bye Bye Butterfree justifies the importance of the Butterfree character in the anime, as well as states why the species is popular in the first place, not strictly about the episode itself. Captain Galaxy 10:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is a WP:REFBOMB circumstance fuelled by mere mentions. This hasn't achieved WP:SIGCOV and can be written up in another more notable article. Jontesta (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple articles that go into detail on Butterfree, not merely the episode. Notably, the IGN source, Crunchyroll source, and Sports Illustrated source, on top of the entomological sigcov clearly passes WP:THREE. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Been on the fence about this one the past few days, but I believe this just squeaks past notability. If it were just the Bye Bye Butterfree refs I'd have considered shifting topic focus (And if this discussion does end in a merge/redirect, I would suggest seeing if using this content for that end is viable) but the refs on the urban legend are surprisingly good and do help show there is discussion among players about Butterfree in multiple aspects. While the refs could be stronger, I do believe that this article has just enough to justify a split-out. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting is divided between editors arguing for a Keep and those advocating a Redirection. A source analysis might help resolve the difference of opinion whether or not they are sufficient to keep the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreeing with the source assessment as our next course of action—straightaway—after which I will make an official decision. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hildisvíni

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

None of these references meet WP:SIGCOV. Bare mentions are not enough to write an article, but these minuscule terms from mythology are verifiable and could be an ok redirect term. Jontesta (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the helmet part to Germanic boar helmet#Old Norse and redirect to Freya as the more immediate target. That part of the topic is already treated there. Interestingly there seems to exist a variation of the origin, being created by two dwarves for Freya, but I cannot figure out the details so I cannot say how much additional material there would be. Daranios (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge. There's a tremendous amount of material and discussion from many secondary sources one can add to this article. Merging it will only discourage that. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloodofox: I am very much open to keeping this a separate article, but don't have a good graps of how much material there is. Could you perhaps point out some of those secondary sources? Daranios (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Freyja. WP:BEFORE shows only trivial mentions but there is an WP:ATD. The article has been tagged for references since 2017 and the best course is to expand it at the target. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Sakazaki

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

Getting this out of the way: the article is huge, but FANDOM pages are also huge, that doesn't have anything to do with a character's notability. In this case, Ryo does not appear notable, and the article only reinforces how Dan Hibiki, the character who is a parody of him, is probably notable while Ryo is not. What is not primary-sourced development information or plot summary is sourced entirely to trivial mentions or listicles that mention him alongside all other characters, only indicating KOF characters are notable as a group. I appreciate the effort to improve the article but Boneless Pizza was likely correct to redirect it in 2023. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made sure it in reception to make sure it had a big impact not only in game journalists discussing him on his own in different countries. Also real people. There are cases of people reacting to his marketing, developers inspired by his story or involving him or simply how important was him being a guest character in Fatal Fury Special also inspired the creation of the fighting game franchise KOF.Tintor2 (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case it helps, I added several new articles focused around him just now.Tintor2 (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are many articles on SNK characters (List of The King of Fighters characters), where I would struggle with notability. The recent additions don't show a significant change in notability. I think covering the character in an article together with SNK's other character would be more useful. IgelRM (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- 'Comment After talking with other users, I tried cleaning up the article by removing reviews and pointless revisions. Most of thecurrent articles are primarily focused on the characters and games narrative with the exception of his Mr. Karate alterego which is more rare so I used few previews for that. Furthermore, I have just found that the internet meme was far more popular worldwide and expanded on it. I also made sure to keep the only important Fatal Fury parts as Ryo's inclusion in FFSpecial is famous for inspiring the KOF franchise as well as guest characters. Same with his role in kof as I only placed articles focused on him and or team. I also changed the commentary of Dan Hibiki and how the company reacted to Dan's character by creating another parody character.Tintor2 (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, for now. There's definitely some potential for discussion regarding Ryo here, and I do feel there is some ground where establishing him helps Dan's article. But many of the sources I've looked through here just aren't saying anything or really next to anything and are mostly reviews. While I recognize the monumental effort I feel it needs a far tighter scope and a near nuke to boil down what's actually said about the character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against any removal of content but I think the current article passes the rule of best three:
The internet meme that has been so popular that has been part of an official mobile game.
Ryo is the first guest character in gaming history, inspiring The King of Fighters '94.
Dan Hibiki.

There is also all those other articles that aren't focused about gameplay or story, but critcize it like how Ryo's age makes no sense in Fatal Fury Special, his ridiculously unfiting built appearance from KOFXV, his rivalry appeal with Geese from XIV, etc. I agree content can be removed but deletion seems sudden.Tintor2 (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But what three sources do you feel hold up the article? It's not just concepts, but the sources themselves. So many of the things here don't even mention the character much or in passing, and those that do aren't saying really much at all. While I'm not saying there isn't something here, it's hard to see that in light of all this. So if you had to start from zero, what fistful of sources would you use as examples of it being notable?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge isn't going to work - this is enormous. (311kb!) If it's to be a redirect, please specify where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'''Comment''' I rearranged the reception and removed most articles that are useless. There is only one review in a comparison the character has with Street Fighter in reception. The only paragraph that abuses a bit retrospectives is the small one of the middleaged persona. The Fatal Fury and KOF feature articles dedicated to the character they criticize his presentation, constant similarities with Ryu from Street Fighter, moves or role in the series. Tintor2 (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that most of the notability is around Dan Hibiki and the feud between game studios. There is some borderline coverage for the character outside that. I am torn because it feels mostly like context for why the character became the subject of the more notable parody in Dan. But I could be convinced to keep the page to provide a richer context of this as a separate character. Either way, this article needs a serious clean-up due to weight. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional element Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time