This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related toScience fiction or fantasy. It is one of manydeletion lists coordinated byWikiProject 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 atWP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page atWP: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 theedit 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|Science fiction and fantasy|~~~~}} 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.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed bya bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod,CfD,TfD etc.) related to Science fiction or fantasy. 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'sdeletion policy andWP: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:
This article was recently restored from a 2019 redirect with the explanation that the "redirected page shows very little information about the topic". This article, about a fictional sci-fi planet, is fancrufty and has notability issues, and only contains primary sources (the books themselves). My restoration of the redirect was reverted with the edit summary "restoring sources" and the suggestion that the redirect destinationFoundation universe#Trantor be expanded with more info on this topic before another redirect. I am laughing because the burden to improve that section is on the editor who has undone the redirect, not the rest of us at large. So I am again suggesting that the redirect toFoundation universe#Trantor be restored. The article content will be perfectly preserved for whoever decides to find some actual sources and recreate this content in some form. —TAnthonyTalk17:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge orkeep. I am a bit of two minds here. This looks like it is a notable topic in itself. As an example,this book review alone has analyis on Trantor as bearing close similarities to New York. On the other hand it does not look great at the moment, with so much information sourced to primary sources. So I can imagine both keeping it with the goal to add such analysis as exists here and likely some trimming, or to start building up atFoundation universe#Trantor first. But I do think we should not just redirect. If this is not kept, this should be the chance touse the primary sourcing we have to reference the section at the merge target, because having no sources is worse than having primary sources. And we have the one sentence of legacy based on secondary sources, being satirized inBill, the Galactic Hero, which should be merged over as it is. Many more could easily be found (Coruscant), but they are not present yet.Daranios (talk)08:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge intoFoundation universe. There is one reliable secondary source, which could be a staring point to get more sources; however, that source alone is not enough to keep a separate article. All content in Wikipedia should be sourced, so a section in the Foundation universe article for Trantor can be sourced with that reference. The article should be trimmed and keep only relevant information in the section.LoЯd۞pεth17:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if by "one reliable secondary source" you are referring to theGreenwood Encyclopedia in the article or the one I have raised above. By now I am quite convinced of the notability of the topic of Trantor, with widely varying sources out there:Invoking the Beyond gives a counterpoint to the review cited above by comparing Trator to Tokyo and Japanese Culture.The Multicultural Matrix has a lot of plot summary but also comments on the relevance of Trantor at various places. "Asimov’s Foundation – turning a data story into an NFT artwork" looks a things from a very different angle, but gives insights on the relevance of the location of Trantor within Asimov's major work. "The Colonial Metropolis in the Work of Asimov and Clarke" sounds very promising, but I cannot access it. And then most importantlyImagining Urban Futures, starting p. 61, has a comparative look on Trantor as a megapolis, and "Trantor: the city-World" is a full academic article focussed on our topic here. I assume there's more in the big analysis works on Asimov, but for me this list is sufficient.Daranios (talk)19:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to DAB. A search of Google Scholar does turn up rather a lot of sources about Goethe's Erdgeist so it could plausibly be considered notable:[1][2][3][4]. However, there is still plenty of room atFaust, Part One to write about the Erdgeist; that article badly needs secondary analysis. PerWP:PAGEDECIDE I see no need for a separate article on the topic. Moreover, skimming the first half-dozen sources I found, I couldn't spot anything to verify the current information about Goethe's Erdgeist, so I don't see anything worth keeping or merging from the current article.~ L 🌸 (talk)02:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We had this discussions years ago. The topic appears in general coverage, as indicated by the numerousWP:PSTS secondary sources cited, which provide real-world information on the topic, as in, for example, the case of the passage mentioningPeter David's views on the matter.Nightscream (talk)01:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A kaiju from the filmGodzilla vs. Biollante. A BEFORE yielded only coverage of its titular film, and any analysis I could find was largely of the film rather than anything particularly focused on Biollante, barring this source[5]. Any information in its article is just developmental info already present at its titular film's article or is just pure plot summary. I propose a BLAR to its titular film as an AtD, and any information editors feel should be retained can be ported over as necessary. If anyone has coverage I've missed feel free to let me know since I'd be happy to be disproven here since Biollante is admittedly cool as fuck. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)22:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the film article, as in the previous AfD. The monster is virtually impossible to separate from the film itself and doesn't seem to have standalone notability besides that.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)23:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge toGodzilla vs. Biollante per above and the previous AFD. The monster only had one notable film appearance, and the "Development" section of this article is talking purely of the development of the creature in that film. As the main film article does not appear to contain all of the information/sources regarding the kaiju's development, it should be merged over, but there is nothing indicating that a separate article would be appropriate.Rorshacma (talk)23:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not appear to be independently notable. I could not find any useful sources about her with aWP:BEFORE, and, looking at the sources already cited, none of them appear to satisfy eitherWP:SIGCOV nor the recommendations outlined atWP:NFCHAR. Most of them are eitherWP:PRSOURCEs or else reviews of the series in general which only mention Yomiko in passing. A couple are listicles, and a couple others are books which, although I cannot access their full text, mostly only seem to briefly mention Yomiko.
The majority of the article is plot summary, and no real-world details about her character's development or reception is included. Even if there were any, I see no compelling reason why any such details could not be covered sufficiently at the articles about the series and the various entries in its media franchise. Such details would not necessarily show that the characterdeserves a standalone article. If there are any sources which prove the character to be independently notable, they should certainly be added (and I will be happy to withdraw my nomination if that is shown to be the case), but I have not found any.silviaASH(inquire within)03:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I feel that this AfD is wrongheaded, as there could have been an effort to gather sources first, then a further determination at that time. All the issues you describe could be fixed through editing, rather than going through this process. Here is what I just added to the reception section:
Her character was received positively. Zuleika ofFandom called her a "typical glasses-wearing, book-infatuated klutz" and noted her obsession "with books," listing her among characters in other classic animeOVAs.[1] Christopher Bolton, a Japanese and comparative literature scholar, noted that in theRead or Die OVA, her book obsession is treated as an "unhealthy preoccupation" distancing her from real life, with a key theme being her realization, gradually, that real relationships, and real people, are "more important than literature."[2] Readman's character influencedMei inOverwatch, at the suggestion of equipment producer Ben Zhang, and noted by animator David Gibson.[3] Erica Victoria Espejo, a well-known animecosplayer and author, noted she wore a cosplay of Readman to a convention, was praised for embodying "the essence" of the character, and then went on to cosplay as Readman again following this.[4]
Otherwise, apart from a mention in Jer Alford's "Obscure O.V.A.s", I found writings about Yomiko Readman in:
You Don't Look Like a Librarian: Shattering Stereotypes and Creating Positive New Images in the Internet Age,page 52 [I cannot read this because Google Books does not let you, but I can gather this discusses Readman and her role as a librarian stereotype] [already in the article]
Apage from The Publishers Weekly, Volume 253, Issues 10-17 (sadly, Google Books doesn't give me much of a preview)
Knjižnice i knjižničari u popularnoj kulturi [translated as "Libraries and librarians in popular culture" (in Croatian, looks to be a thesis of some kind) talks about Readman on pages 55-58, saying, in part, on page 57, "Yomiko is an extreme example of a bibliophile and a paper craftswoman in the literal sense. She can do anything she wants with paper, including creating magical shields, weapons, etc. R.O.D. has, through films, comics, and TV series, developed her own little world that is still revered by many loyal fans today...Yomiko is described as a typical bookworm, an introverted substitute teacher who wears glasses and is obsessed with reading and collecting books. As a true bibliophile, she often spends all her money on buying various books, so much so that her entire apartment is filled to the ceiling with romance and other novels."
I appreciate the effort to gather sources (I did find a few of these in my own search, but also missed many of them). Apart from the Fandom article, which I'm not sure is admissible, these all seem to pass muster for reliability.
However, although I think these are all good sources to keep in mind for covering the critical reception ofR.O.D. in general, my own opinion on the notability of the topic is mostly unchanged. There's a handful of these I'd see as being useful to flesh out the article alongside sources that address the character of Yomiko Readman more directly, but I'm not sure those exist, and in general these look to all be using her only as either as an example (of cosplay, stereotype, or anime protagonists) without directly addressing her as the main topic, or else only cover her over the course of covering the plot of the series generally, which one would naturally have to do when she's the lead character.
I still think the article would be best off merged and/or redirected, but I'll wait and see what opinions other editors have on these sources before I comment any further.silviaASH(inquire within)06:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, I'm willing to personally wait to see what opinions editors have as well, but personally, I would not be opposed to merging or redirecting if other sources cannot be found, although I wouldprefera weak keep at this time.Historyday01 (talk)12:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion seems unnecessarily harsh and it eliminates all the work that people have put in the article at this point. All that editing history is eliminated. This is why I tend to almost always oppose deletion. Also, the series was not "irrelevant." At the very least, a redirect as the OP proposed is a better option. I still maintain a weak keep on the proviso that good sources exist.Historyday01 (talk)14:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's my thought as well. The series certainly is notable, but I do think due to the number of years ago this was and the fact that the series isn't streaming anywhere (as far as I'm aware), that may have reduced the number of articles on Readman. That's just my guess on that part.Historyday01 (talk)20:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article is very bad, yes. Most of it is fancrufty plot summary, and 3 out of 4 sources in reception are weak. However, she is mentioned on ~10 pages of the cited academic book[6], and other sources presented above suggest there is enough to prove notability of this character. The article needs a major rewrite (shorten fancrufty plot summary, expand with reliable sources analyzing her character...), butWP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here02:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's my thought on it as well. The page certainly needs work. I've seen other character pages like this before, so having a page like this is not unusual, unfortunately. Like always, it depends on who works on it, and how much time they put into updating it.Historyday01 (talk)12:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A list of "supplementary" Doctor Who episodes; the problem with this list is that the scope it's defining just... doesn't exist. This list includes things ranging from official "minisodes" to unrelated films produced in the 1960s to various spin-off material pieces from throughout the years in a way that official sources do not actually define as being a unified group. The grouping of these subjects together is entirely original research and any sources are discussing only individual entries without any information pertaining to how they connect to the other entries as a group.
PerWP:LISTN these lists need sourcing as a group to be notable but that neither that sourcing nor that grouping exists. A source search BEFORE yields nothing for the concept of "supplementary episodes" and any other search time I try yields nothing that indicates this grouping is notable, even trimmed down; even the "minisodes" mentioned above lack group notability. This list is simply non-notable and original research and should be deleted. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)00:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very confusing proposal for deletion. Per LISTN, the claim that "these lists need sourcing as a group" is blatantly false; quoting it, that is "[o]ne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable". Indeed: "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists", and "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." "Supplementary" means "something additional; an extra". These includes additional, extra content released outside of the broadcast episodes. That's a very clear scope and definition. At this point, there is no clear policy or guideline cited that supports the deletion of this article. --Alex_21TALK01:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex 21 this is still original research. No source defines this listing of episodes like this, and we follow the sources above any other definition. This inherently goes against what Wikipedia is not. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)01:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again: that is not a core policy or "must have" per NLIST. Kindly refer to the rest of my quotes regarding that particular guideline and discuss why you believe they do not apply here. The article itself very clearly defines what is included in that article. --Alex_21TALK01:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Original research should not be in any article, and just because it's a list does not mean it is exempt from that. The article may define the scope, but do sources support that this scope actually exists? Your other arguments are just arguing why, hypothetically, sources wouldn't be needed to prove LISTN, but the entire argument of a hypothetical navigational list is called into question when the entire topic is backed on original research with no sources discussing it whatsoever. You haven't actually addressed why this original research isn't a problem, nor have you discussed the inherent sourcing issues with this. An article having a few sources may have an argument, but having no sources at all is far more questionable. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)02:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the original research? You need to have an actual basis and proof of policy violation before you make baseless claims, and your disagreement on the definition of a word is not original research, thus you've presented... nothing. That's what this boils down to - you disagree on the use of the word "supplementary". Your entire argument is based on ignoring the rest of LISTN, which you are now aware does not apply here. Does the article need more sources? Yes. So tag it so. A lack of sources it not a reasoning for a deletion; you've tried deletion discussions like this before, to no avail. --Alex_21TALK07:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of sources is inherently a reason for deletion because if no sources exist, there's nothing to base an article on. I've done a detailed BEFORE and foundnothing sourcing-wise that groups this topic together like this, nor anything that even discusses this topic period. I've said this multiple times above. If the sources don't exist we can't simply tag it as needing more sources and moving on, because that kind of improvement is unlikely to ever happen or even be possible. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)16:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the content in detail, I can agree that it's extended to far beyond what's necessary, but there's still relevant conntent here. Thoughts on my proposal below? The article used to only list actual supplemental episodes in 2021, before it was fancrufted out of proportion by one anon. --Alex_21TALK21:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex 21, commenting on @Pokelego999 'trying this before to no avail' is a borderline violation ofWP:FOC. PL is a respectable editor and the focus should be on content and not conduct.
WP:LISTN states the following: 'One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.' Emphasis here on the 'group or set' being documented, the latter sentence is referring to individual list entries, not the group as a whole, which still requires coverage fromreliable sources. In this case, none of the sourcing in this list article, which relies onWP:BLOGS andWP:TUMBLR, among others, refer to "supplementary" Doctor Who episodes as "supplementary". For this reason I agree entirely with PL and !vote todelete the article.11WB (talk)01:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is noted, thanks for the ping. I have already discussed LISTN in detail, to the entire extent of the guideline, and I do not feel the need to do so again. If you disagree with my conduct, you are welcome to tell me so at my talk page, so you can focus on the content here rather than conduct. --Alex_21TALK02:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I get what this list is trying to do. It wants to catch all theDr. Who episodes and television films that don't fit neatly into the other lists. In that respect it is acting like aWP:Navigation page. On the other hand I get the criticism of the nominator, and we really should have a better source based way of organizing and defining the list. On balance, absent another way of navigating to these pages, I think the loss of this list as navigational tool would be bad. We do need an index for these episodes for navigational purposes and that is what this list currently does for us. So keep, but only for that reason.4meter4 (talk)03:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge entries into relevant season articles: I struggle to see the organisational benefit of this list outside their main articles. The scope currently is wildly expansive, including mini-episodes, trailers, interstitial scenes and character crossovers, the Cushing films for some reason (which are neither episodes or supplementary by any measure), even BBC One idents(!). Clearly that scope could be refined and isn't cause for deletion in itself, but it does represent the wider issue that this categorisation isn't clear or significant, or helpful to Wikipedia readers. As long as all its "episodes" are mentioned in the relevant main articles, it's surplus to requirements.U-Mos (talk)09:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd absolutely support removing content like the films, trailers and idents, they aren't needed here. I remember when this article used to literally list just the supplementary minisodes and episode-related content, then it was expanded unnecessarily by anon's.This is what the article used to look like before a singular anon made240+ consecutive edits in October 2021 to the article (and then another100+) - I support restoring this version. That way, the scope is restored to being defined as content released to accompany and supplement episodes. Thoughts? --Alex_21TALK21:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be unopposed to restoring it should this be kept, but I'm only going to change to a Keep vote myself if the minisodes can be found to be independently notable of the wider series, otherwise I favor U-Mos's proposal. I did a search for minisodes by themselves and found little covering them as a set, and I feel navigationally it makes more sense to organize them with their respective series articles than as they are now. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)22:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, fair enough. I'll go through soon and start removing the unsourced trivia/fancruft. As you said, a lack of sources is inherently a reason for deletion because if no sources exist, so there's no need to wait. --Alex_21TALK01:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the unreferenced articles backlog. I can't find any sources for this older tabletop RPG. It's possible that there's coverage in specialist media that isn't online, but I can't find anything even referencing it on the Internet Archive database either. Unless proper sourcing can be found, this looks to be aWP:GNG failure.SilverserenC00:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of those counts as reliable sources. I saw them in my search and I don't see anything on why they'd count as proper specialist media with a reputation for reliability. Especially if they're made by a single person, thus violatingWP:SPS.SilverserenC21:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cyfal, can you explain the significant coverage shown to meet theWP:GNG? The only source that is actual coverage and not some form of database isThe Forge. Which appears to be an internet forum group. So why would it meet our requirements for what constitutes areliable source? In addition to that, it's only a singular source of coverage and more than a single source is needed to meet the GNG.SilverserenC05:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can Silver seren's questions about the sources be answered please? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Left guide (talk)00:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree that I cannot see any sign thatThe Forge meets our standards to be considered a reliable source. There is no indication of editorial review or a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The fact that the author of this particular piece was the creator and moderator of the site makes this firmly aself-published source. You couldmaybe try to make the case thatRon Edwards qualifies as anWP:EXPERTSPS, but I'm fairly dubious that he isan established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. And regardless, as Silver seren has pointed out, even in the best case that would still only be one source — we need multiple to meet GNG.MCE89 (talk)12:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even ifThe Forge was determined to be a reliable source (and MCE89 has a very strong argument as to why it is not), that is still a single source. Since no other significant coverage in reliable sources have been found, it fails theWP:GNG.Rorshacma (talk)23:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the unreferenced articles backlog. I can't seem to find any sources covering this RPG, whether through a general search or through database deep dives like on the Internet Archive. Unless there's specialist media coverage out there somewhere, this appears to fail theWP:GNG.SilverserenC02:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article with with arbitrarily chosen elements which are just redirects to the articles they mention. It all seems like stuff which can be explained simply on their own pages and doesn't require a 'stub' just to relist the same information.Halbared (talk)17:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Egad, early Wikipedia at its worst. While I can find plenty of online sources discussing the topic, they are almost all either UGC a la Fandom, Wikipedia mirrors, or random websites of questionable authority.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)22:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The current article is mostlyWP:OR andWP:IINFO. At best, removing the offending content leaves us with a lack ofWP:SIGCOV to build a proper article. I'm not sure this requires a redirect, I am neutral on creating one, if searching for some permutation ofgiant isn't enough.Shooterwalker (talk)18:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shooterwalker - In addition to the concerns they cited, I am also just not finding any significant coverage to indicate that the overall concept of "Half-giants" is a topic that has received enough discussion in reliable sources that an article could ever be more than just a list citing the few noteworthy examples, of which there are honestly not that many.Rorshacma (talk)00:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually looking at theGiant article, I see that in the list of links to notable examples there, there is already a "Half-Giant" section that currently just links here. Given how small the list would be, I would not be opposed to redirecting this there and just moving over the few notable examples, such as Hagrid, to the list there.Rorshacma (talk)00:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge toGiant#Half-giant asWP:Alternative to deletion. While we don't seem to have enough coverage for a stand-alone article, we do have a sentence of summarizing characterization based on a reliable source as well as some notable examples from mythology and fantasy fiction. And the authors of theGiant article already made a fitting space for such content.Daranios (talk)10:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There are arguments for deletion that have been made, however there are also suggestions for merging content elsewhere. Relisting to allow for further discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,11WB (talk)22:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't appear to passWP:LISTN and was created from a desire to "dispose of" listcruft instead of just deleting it. Furthermore, the use of the term "dhampir" to describe these characters appears to be wrong, as it largely appears in mythology and folklore, or as a D&D character. They'd better be described simply as half-vampires.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)19:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just a largely unsourced list of examples, the vast majority of which are extremely non-notable. The mainDhampir article already has a short prose section on their depictions in popular culture, and already includes mentions/links to the few examples that actually have their own articles. I'm not seeing anything here worth merging, and I don't think it would a particularly useful Redirect, though I am not particularly opposed to the latter due toWP:CHEAP.Rorshacma (talk)22:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ormerge toDhampir#In modern culture. IfDhampir is a notable topic, then a list of dhampirs automatically fulfillsWP:LISTN, because that's what LISTN spells out. That issue solved, I find the raised question very relevant, if the scope should be focussed on characters connected to the folkloric figure of the dhampir (and presumably named dhampirs), or if the scope should be wider, based on thedefinition of the dhampir, i.e. half-vampire/person with one vampire and one human as parents. While I originally imagined it might be the former, I've realized thatHalf-vampireredirects toDhampir, i.e. as things currently stand Wikipedia has decided to treat half-vampires under the heading dhampir. Now there are a lot of unsourced examples in the list as it stands now, which warrant quite some trimming. But there are quite enough blue links to make a list fornavigational purposes reasonable, if we go with dhampirs including half-vampires. So improvments could be done through normal editing, and deletion is then not warranted on this basis. A trimmed list would be short enough that I have no objections if it were merged toDhampir#In modern culture on the basis ofWP:PAGEDECIDE.If on the other hand there would be decision to cover half-vampires separate from dhampirs, e.g. underList of vampires, I can imagine that as well. But that's again a discussion of an editorial question which should be solved on the talk page rather than in a deletion discussion.Daranios (talk)11:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A trimmed list of only the notable entries that blue link to their own articles would essentially be the same as the entries already listed atDhampir#In modern culture, hence why a merge would not be necessary for this. As far as I can see, the only two entries here with their own articles that are not already listed there areConnor (Angel) andGiorno Giovanna, and while I am not knowledgeable of the lore of either of their series, the information on their articles seems to indicate that neither one are actually strictly Dhampirs/half-vampires.Rorshacma (talk)16:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, but my stance in such cases is to also include characters which appear in non-trivial manner on Wikipedia as parts of other articles as most helpful for navigation, like in this caseElla Rozen. Dennis andRenesmee Cullen appear atDhampir, but would benefit from mention of their works. So I remain with keep or merge of a few selected bits of info.Daranios (talk)12:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. This doesn't passWP:SIGCOV. There will naturally be some specific examples at the main article, but I'm not sure that warrants even a redirect. Someone could create a redirect after this AFD if they truly felt it was important.Shooterwalker (talk)18:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The cast of Metroid are not notable enough to warrant having an article about them broadly. The series is centered almost entirely around the protagonist Samus, arguably more than it is around the Metroid species. About a third of this article isn't even about characters but about in-universe races. I wouldn't be opposed merging parts of this article into the main series article, though.ThePoggingEditor (talk)16:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toMetroid#Plot, where many of the series' major recurring characters are already listed. Any further characters incorporated there can be handled editorially, with the numerous one-offs redirected to their particular game of origin. A search using multiple variations of "Metroid characters" yields a ton of sources discussing its protagonist,Samus Aran, but absolutely none for the series's characters as a whole, which is required for a list article to meetWikipedia:LISTN. Any other articles on characters are about particular characters who already have articles, such asSA-X andRidley (Metroid). I just do not see the coverage for a separate article here. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)19:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is from 2023, and TheGamer has been seen to be reliable post-2020 and countable towards notability. From what I can tell, the situational part comes from pre-2020 material not being reliable. Obviously if you want to argue that it should be 100% situational you can go and do that on the sources page but that argument seems currently incorrect.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)22:18, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This interpretation contradictsWP:VALNET, which reads: "In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability due to concerns over their content farming. ... Opinions presented in editorials reviews or list entries that have significant coverage may be used sparingly to augment reception where notability has been established by stronger sources." There is no qualifier that content published by Valnet on any of these sites are notable, and in fact, the text states that Valnet-published material is allowed, but it does not count towards a subject's notability.Cukie Gherkin (talk)23:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toMetroid#Plot. I do think there are a few potentially notable characters (Adam Malkovich, the titular species, and Dark Samus), those are all easy redirects; Dark Samus is discussed in the Metroid series, Adam Malkovich is primarily known for his appearance in Other M, and Metroids are currently adequately covered on the series page. Everything else comfortably redirects, for the most part, to game articles. Besides the logistics of a redirect, the article simply does not fulfill notability at present. -Cukie Gherkin (talk)21:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it doesn't seem notable by itself, I believe that there are enough notable characters for it to be a valid purely navigational list. The list should be purged of any character or group that doesn't either have an article or meetWP:GNG criteria such that an article on them could be created. The name should also be changed to demonstrate it is solely a list and not an article, for which it would fail notability.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)01:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, as someone who has researched multiple members of the Metroid cast, the only characters I've found evidence of potential notability are Adam Malkovich, Metroids, Sylux, Dark Samus, and X Parasite. And that's emphasis on potential; in my search, I've found that Adam's reception is largely a NOPAGE situation, going hand-in-hand with Other M's reception about potential sexism and linearity. Metroids are probably notable, and the other three I haven't found enough evidence of notability yet. I don't believe that keeping a basic list around really benefits anyone for navigational purposes, as we have bothCategory:Metroid characters (which itself hasCategory:Metroid character redirects to lists) andTemplate:Metroid. -Cukie Gherkin (talk)01:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Metroids as a fictional species used to have a page, which got merged into this page in 2023 as the consensus was that it wasn't a notable enough topic to have its own page. I personally disagree with the consensus on that since I'd argue the Metroid species is iconic, and I plan on finding sources to establish notability (I feel like there was not a good attempt at establishing notability). I think Adam Malkovich has potential for a page because of the backlash to his character that sparked some conversation. Sylux's notability will ultimately be decided by fan response to MP4.ThePoggingEditor (talk)07:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it's true that Samus is by far the most notable Metroid character, but theMetroid franchise is ~17 games, many extremely notable. Even if we shave that down to the most important games and combine originals + remakes like Zero Mission, that's ~10 games worth of content. It might be good practice to shave down the single-game only unimportant characters to get the focus on well-known series regulars (Ridley, Kraid, Mother Brain) as well as multi-game important-enough characters (Adam), but this list is still valid. There is plenty of sourceable content here, but including it in the main Metroid series article would dull the focus and bloat it. So it's a validWP:SUMMARY-style spinout.SnowFire (talk)16:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The parent article already retains information on all of the major recurring threats and characters in the series. The "Setting" section already covers the Metroids, Galactic Federation, and Chozo in extensive detail, and the "Story" section covers the history of nearly all the major recurring antagonists (Dark Samus, X Parasites, Kraid/Ridley, Mother Brain) as well as Adam and the Baby. The only recurring characters on the list not already covered in good detail at the parent are Nightmare (A two-off boss) the Etecoons and Dachoras (Minor two-off recurring characters) and Sylux, who is an upcoming antagonist we do not yet know the role of. Every other entry on the Metroid list is a one off, and if stripped down to just the above, it would largely just be duplicative of what's already in the main Metroid article. It's not really a valid SUMMARYSTYLE split when there's barely any reason to split it out in the first place. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)18:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According toWP:SUMMARY, 8,000 words is generally the starting point for when a size split should be considered, and the Metroid series page without markup is less than 5000 words. To emphasize how little an issue there is with merging, if we merged the article largely unchanged and removed anyone only in one game and deemphasized split characters like Samus, Mother Brain, and Ridley, it would add only 4000 words, which itself could be dealt with by trimming down some sections that are definitely overwrought. For example, Kraid, a major enemy in three different games, has less discussion than the X Parasites. I tried trimming down Chozo and X Parasite, and even with including the single paragraph for Samus, Mother Brain, and Ridley, that leaves the list as barely over 3000 words of prose, which would fit comfortably with the series page's <5000 words of prose.Cukie Gherkin (talk)18:49, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem with just trimming this article down to recurring characters would be that we'd be left with like 5 characters, and I also don't consider boss enemies like Kraid as characters, unless they serve a narrative purpose like Ridley or Mother Brain. I remember Zelda having a similar issue to Metroid, and what ultimately happened was that the most recurring characters got merged into another article (the Universe of Zelda article). Now, the BotW and TotK section did get split into a new page (which I did), and Ocarina of Time characters already have a page, but there's not a singular Metroid game notable in a way (or even with a large enough cast) to have that sort of arrangement either. Series like Zelda and Final Fantasy are known for their large cast of characters (especially the latter), which is why we have lists or individual games. Meanwhile, Metroid is known for being isolating and lonely, which lends itself to not having a notable cast in any game.ThePoggingEditor (talk)19:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re the above: I agree with many of the above points. I just am also pretty accepting of summary style spinoffs in this kind of case.
I wouldn't have any objection to moving / refactoring this article to something like "Universe of Metroid" that puts Metroids, the X-Parasite, the Chozo, etc. on the same level of named characters like Ridley / Kraid / Dark Samus. But I also would see that translated into AFD-ese as "Keep with no prejudice to merging."SnowFire (talk)22:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought about that. It's not very common though, since I've so far only seen it used for Star Wars, Zelda, and Mass Effect. I suppose if Mass Effect's universe is notable enough to have a page, so could Metroid's universe.ThePoggingEditor (talk)02:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah unless there's coverage of the universe as a whole it's just gonna be a COATRACK. I don't believe that coverage exists to my knowledge but I'm happy to be proven wrong if anyone has sources. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)02:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom/Pokelego. The level of detail here is incommensurate with the sourcing present/availble, and again, main characters can be and already are discussed at the main article, while minor characters can be mentioned at the specific game articles if even important enough for those. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)16:15, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty mixed. We have a series article, but should we spin out article/list about the fictional universe? There's evidence that Metroid isn't just a celebrated series, but a celebrated setting/world/environment[11][12][13][14] and character ensemble[15][16]. On the other hand, this article has lot of unsourced / primary sourced content that should be drastically cut. It's good that we have articles forSamus Aran,Mother Brain, andRidley (Metroid). I happen to think that some of the less notable aspects like the Chozo or the Space Pirates or Phazon have enough coverage to belong somewhere. I haven't decided the best way to approach it yet.Shooterwalker (talk)17:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See, I wouldn't even necessarily be opposed to an article about the series' universe, as I do agree that the world of Metroid is quite possibly notable (I just don't think the cast is that notable outside of the ones already split out). IMO, the correct approach would be to cover these aspects in the Metroid series page and then possibly collaborate to do a Universe of Metroid article.Cukie Gherkin (talk)22:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently Keep, as all this important info cannot realistically be added to the series article without it being far too long and detailed, even if individual entry detail is reduced, but if Cukie Gherkin's hypothetical Universe of Metroid article is made,Merge most of this article's content to there, andRedirect individual characters to their game of importance. (The only issues with this would be Adam, Dark Samus, and Sylux, due to their importance being split between games, but Sylux likely might passWP:GNG post-Prime 4, and one minor issue doesn't outweigh everything else, in my opinion).TheSilksongPikmin (talk |contribs)13:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, especially where there are specific members of the Galactic Federation that are in the fourth game, including the controversial characterMyles MacKenzie. Once Metroid Prime 4 comes out, we'd get to know more about these characters.Yoshiman6464♫🥚21:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In all likelihood that would best off be folded into this article as a section. It's still a case for keeping the list though.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)23:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename/cleanup/reorganize ormerge: I seeWP:SIGCOV for key elements of the Metroid universe in aggregate. This is for topics like the Chozo, Kraid, or the titular Metroid creature. These characters aren't deep enough for multiple separate articles likeSamus Aran,Ridley (Metroid),Mother Brain, andSA-X, but have enough coverage to combine into a notable list. If we also consider topics such as Phazon, Zebes (and Brinstar, Norfair), we'd have an even stronger case for theWP:NOTABILITY of the whole Metroid Universe, in aggregate. You could convince me that the Metroid universe could be covvered at the main series article as anWP:ATD, but that would still make it inappropriate to delete this list outright. (But yes, I would encourage someone to drastically reduce the unsourced information andWP:OR.)Shooterwalker (talk)18:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker a lot of the content you mention isn't really about the characters, and seems more in line with a Metroid universe article. I'd argue that the potential notability of another topic isn't immediately indicative of grounds that another non-notable topic, as a result, is notable. The characters still don't meet notability as a group, as required of LISTN, and if the universe does, that's a separate topic best developed outside the confines of an AfD without retaining a non-notable topic. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)23:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've refactored my !vote to include my preference for a rename. You're right that the topic is different, but covers a lot of the same ground. Enough of this article would need to be included at theMetroid universe article that deletion is inappropriate.Shooterwalker (talk)18:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename article to list: The article appears to have sufficient sourcing. The primary issue I see is the article not being titled as a list, which it is written as. With a simple rename, I see no other reason to notkeep it.11WB (talk)05:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a simpler title would beList of Metroid characters, which was its original name in 2006. I myself moved it to "List of Metroid series characters" as one of my first edits, but I now believe that was unnecessary quibbling. Simply "Metroid" would be fine, since nobody is going to assume the characters are solely from NES Metroid.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)04:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at: