Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judge Francisco

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. RL0919 (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Francisco[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

@Piotrus: prodded this article and the following three with the rationale Fictional character. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION.. I redirected them per WP:BRD and WP:ATD-R, but they have been reverted three times each. I'm getting very close to WP:3RR, so I'll just take all four articles here. ミラ P 00:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - No real world sources or information present so fail GNG, Not Plot, etc. TTN (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per my original prod rationale which has not been challenged: Fictional character. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom. No independent notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - all fail WP:GNG, no real world notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am surprised at how much of a war we still need to wage against fancruft. Maybe I should not be considering how far we moved to becoming the star wars extended universe wiki, and the Once Upon a Time wiki, but still.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless any decent sources are identified. If there's an appropriate list or merge target and anyone feels that the content should be kept, I wouldn't be opposed to merges/redirects, but let's not just create redirects to Judge Dredd or something. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Entirely non-notable cruft. Fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Fictional. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2019 (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.