Cheetara (ThunderCats) : There are a handful of sources about this character and I don't think it's enough, although I'm sure others will differ.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 00:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions .  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 00:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If kept, this should be moved to Cheetara , as there's no other articles competing for that title.  Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] N.B. @ Skarmory : I've boldly redirected Cheetara for now as it was a duplicate article, before seeing your comment here.  I don't want my redirect to suggest opposition to your comment, I would be okay with the other way around.  I did it this way because the AfD link was to this title.  microbiology Marcus ( petri dish ) 19:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ MicrobiologyMarcus : It was a redirect when I made the comment.  An IP has now made a cut-and-paste move during an AFD to place the content at the undisambiguated title without an AFD tag.  I'll revert that.  Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  While the article's reception is pretty poor and mostly based on listicles, the nom gets a WP:TROUT for not bothering with WP:BEFORE .  A simple GScholar search shows some substantial discussion in a Master Thesis .  There is passing (SIGCOV-failing to me) but usable analysis in [50] .  Likewise, a single but useful sentence in [51] (although I am not sure if this is reliable - was this published and reviewed?).  There are several other sources which may have something useful.  It is the nom's responsibility to do BEFORE and to tell us whether those sources are no good.  What I have found suggests that this character is likely notable.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Piotrus : WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."  Is there evidence that this applies to the Masters thesis mentioned?  The Asian Social Science journal is published by the Canadian Center of Science and Education - they are listed at an article called " 2017 list of 'predatory' science journals published, hundreds claim to be Canadian ".  Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 16:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed, this is not great.  @ Daranios , @ Siroxo - do you see anything I missed?  PS.  There is some relevant content in Tygra , although it seems to have SIGCOV issues (and that article has GNG issues similar to the one here, I fear...).  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect To List of ThunderCats characters due to extremely weak sourcing.  No prejudice towards a recreation if better sources are found.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect To List of ThunderCats characters .  No evidence that the subject meets GNG.  Please ping me if good sources are located.  BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 22:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of ThunderCats characters .  Per Zxcvbnm, this can always be re-expanded if sources are found.  But it would be better to see a quality list than many low quality articles.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: redirect