Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Static enemies


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

List of Static enemies

 * – ( View AfD View log )

FANDOM-level fancruft without a single reference, making it WP:ALLPLOT and WP:OR. Only lists a bunch of minor enemies. Therefore, fails WP:LISTN. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete does indeed appear to fail WP:LISTN. -- The SandDoctor Talk 06:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unnecessary content split that fails to properly summarize content per WP:WAF and WP:NOTPLOT. The main article can handle whatever little context these characters need, if any. There is no reason to retain this content. TTN (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.  Some Dude From North Carolina  (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above; nothing of value worth keeping Spiderone  23:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  23:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yep WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Will retract when the nomination cites a proper rationale.
 * - Two fallacies here. Fiction is one of the many topics covered on Wikipedia (and that includes lists of supporting fictional characters) provided that there is adequate coverage. Perhaps coverage does not exist, but I'm not seeing that argued or substantiated anywhere in this post. Believe it or not, "fancruft" is not a magical word that can waved around to achieve deletion, you have to actually substantiate that (the essay itself says as much). Second, the issue here seems to be unsourced content, not original research. Third, it should be noted that ALLPLOT on its own is not a criteria for deletion.
 * - That's not even remotely how WP:LISTN works. Article or list content does not determine notability. Likewise, saying "it fails LISTN because the characters are minor" gives off the appearance of WP:IDONTKNOWIT.
 * Overall, the nomination does not cite a criteria for deletion (at least, correctly), nor does it seem as though the OP did anything to determine if the subject of the article truly fails LISTN. There really isn't anything here other than declarations of subjective importance with some page issues (no sourcing, mostly plot) that don't amount to deletion on their own.  Dark knight  2149  03:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Fails WP:LISTN" is the reason for deletion.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete- much like the other Static article up for deletion, this is a huge wad of unsourced fancruft. Since none of it is sourced it is not possible to merge any of it and, even if we could, any potential targets are crufty enough already and don't require a fresh injection of more cruft. Reyk YO! 21:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So no valid rationale for deletion is cited here, and all of the "delete" votes (except for one) essentially boil down to "Well, it's just fancruft" and "the quality of sourcing is bad". I guess that's another couple for the pile.  Dark knight  2149  23:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. NavjotSR (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The nom didn't give an explanation for deletion.  Dark knight  2149  21:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is there even one reliable source discussing this topic as a whole? I couldn't find anything online but was wondering if anyone wishing to have this article kept can find a reliable secondary source to show that this meets WP:LISTN and WP:GNG Spiderone  18:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. When such a list has no sources showing that the topic has real-world consequence, it is more than likely that the content is sourced to the book/comic/show/game itself, which would be a primary source and not usable as a Wikipedia source. Geschichte (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.