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 The Da Vinci Code. ✗plicit 14:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptex (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)

This is another OR/fancrufty mess, with just three footnotes - a YouTube video, a patent and a fancrufty book companion. BEFORE shows some mentions, but in various contexts, including some plot summaries and possibly some real-world products inspired by this. There may be something notable here (14 interwikis; although the pl wiki article I checked is just pure plot summary...), but what we have is just a mess (OR, V, GNG issues) in need of WP:TNT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Da Vinci Code, where it is mentioned and covered extensively. No need for a separate article if no coverage is present. There are very frequently articles with high interwikis that get removed. Just because something was translated a lot does not necessarily mean it is inherently notable. Unless SIGCOV can be shown, this should just be redirected. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Pokelego999. It's already mentioned there, and there isn't anything additional to add, without more sources. Fails WP:GNG without significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working on the plwiki article (it's current version is here) and it appears that some sources in the reference section are sound, all of them in English (especially The cryptex in Berlin Spy Museum and cryptex at Christie's), so there's a chance that there's notability here. But I absolutely agree with Piotrus that saving this article might require the WP:TNT approach. Laked98 (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2025 (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.