Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enderman (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Minecraft#Gameplay as an WP:ATD Salvio ^giuliano 18:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enderman

Enderman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Zero real-world notability. Delete as per WP:NOTPLOT. Would have redirected, but that is no longer an option since the redirect was challenged. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (restore redirect) as a non-notable video game character failing WP:GNG with insufficient reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. There are some random sources like [1], but not enough to write an encyclopedic article. There are a ton of source that mention the mob, but none are in-depth or focused on the mob itself. Especially, not something usable for WP:WAF. As it stands, it's WP:ALLPLOT and WP:GAMECRUFT. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect To Minecraft#Gameplay - simply not enough significant coverage. However, it is absolutely a believable search term and the redirect it formerly as should be restored. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. As far as real world relevance goes this character doesn't qualify for its own article. It is very relevant to minecraft though, so we should redirect it. Blitzfan51 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable enough, however I do think that an article including a list of Minecraft mobs should be created. If such an article existed, I would propose this be merged with that one, however as no such article currently exists, I am voting for delete. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability ImperialMajority (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC) sock strike ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect – Lacks SIGCOV, and the only source in the article being a user-generated wiki is telling as to its notability. DecafPotato (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Zxcvbnm above. I did a search for more detailed sources and only found Wikis that really covered it in the level of detail needed for it to be kept. Nomader (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, Wikis aren't reliable sources which seems like it's all that's there. If people really want to know more about the Enderman they can go to the unofficial official Minecraft Wiki. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. 2001:4455:6F5:7C00:A44E:A2CB:D9FA:3431 (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm fairly sure this is notable. --2007Gtbot (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To claim something is notable, you have to show how it satisfies WP:GNG. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 16:46, 2 April 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.