Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Comics and animation. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Comics and animation|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Comics and animation. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Article alerts are available, updated by AAlertBot. More information...

Scan for comics AfDs

Scan for animation AfDs
Scan for webcomics AfDs
Scan for comics Prods
Scan for animation Prods
Scan for webcomics Prods
Scan for comics template TfDs
Scan for animated series template TfDs

Related deletion sorting

Comics and animation

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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Powtoon

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

Through a web search, it doesn't appear that this is a notable company. I've found some web articles [1][2][3], but with a quick read, I'm concerned about significant coverage (i.e., commentary, analysis, etc.) of the company's services within those sources, per WP:CORPDEPTH. Best, Bridget (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, Internet, Software, and United Kingdom. Bridget (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like an advertisement or product description rather than an article, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia's standards. In addition, there are just three references; one by the company's own page, an article in a technologic publication and a product review. These are not enough to consider the company to be notable. Just to be sure, I searched for more inependent sources on the company to possibly add later on, and found almost nothing beyond brief mentions. NeoGaze (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think there's SIGCOV of the company, but I found several sources about the product: [4], [5], [6], [7]. I'm not entirely sure how to resolve that. Anerdw (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The first link Anerdw is an entire book evaluating the subject pedagogically and without any apparent COI. The other links Anerdw provides aren't that crazy notable, but also do very much offer significant coverage. The second link nom (Bridget) provides is a long PCMag review, and it does provide analysis (e.g. was disheartened not to have access to snapping guides for centering and aligning); I doubt nom's interpretation of CorpDepth anyways: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product. Even without analysis, description would be enough under the "or". To me, CorpDepth is just something that excludes e.g. "articles" whose only independent content is routine stuff like "Company got $1 billion in founding round B, 14% of which was from famed Corpo C. Additionally, 43% of this contribution was from Corpo D, while 18% was from famed VC...." etc. Any coverage that provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization should qualify for the SigCov criteria. In my experience, the precedent at AfD is that tech publications and product reviews are not disqualified form notability considerations, and such is also the opinion of the oft-cited essay WP:NSOFTWARE. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 28 April 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.

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 merge‎ to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Great and Powerful Trixie

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

Not enough in-depth coverage and no scholarly discussions of this character. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters; refs appear to be passing mentions largely acknowledging the character exists or outright fan sites, and there are a couple of limp listicles on GNews. Would say this one falls clearly short of GNG it's not without some limited validity as a redirect to the character article. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters per BoomboxTestarossa. Searches using both the "Great and Powerful Trixie" and "Trixie Lulamoon" names are turning up nothing but trivial mentions in reliable sources, meaning the character fails the WP:GNG. But, as she is already included in the character list for the series, a Redirect would be an appropriate WP:ATD, and any missing information can be merged over to her entry there. Rorshacma (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per all. This doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV but there is a clear character list to merge to, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others, fails GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as the author of this article per above, though I would like to request the merger to keep the history. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 18:06, 19 April 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.

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 merge‎ to List of Cobra characters. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thrasher (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (mostly primary) GIJ materials, plus a mention in an unrelated novel. Should be redirected to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. This can be broken out into an article again if the section is expanded with third-party sources sufficient to show independent notability. BD2412 T 20:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Cobra characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per various arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) (which no one wanted to copy to all of the simultaneous 52 AFDs of the same topic area). BOZ (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as two different Merge target articles were suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, let's do this proper. Action Force kid, though I did enjoy the Devil's Due America's Elite stuff, so I have a passable working knowledge of G. I. Joe. My recollection is that with perhaps one or two exceptions, the fellows packed with the vehicles didn't get much attention as it was the vehicles that sold them. Thrasher sadly seems to be one of these cases.

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_G_I_Joe_Roster/wvYYEQAAQBAJ? - if admissible (and this would be a good venue to hash this out so we can bundle nominate any others; I don't see any problem with it as a non-licenced and therefore non-primary book published professionally) only has passing mentions.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Ultimate_Guide_to_G_I_Joe_1982_1994/_BNjDwAAQBAJ? - with the same caveat; fragment of behind-the-scenes info which would make a nice footnote, but nothing in depth.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Complete_Encyclopedia_to_GI_Joe/rsDmjZyu5zwC? - only passing mentions.
https://www.cbr.com/tragic-gi-joe-villains/ - this is what I'd call a 'third source', as in if we had two good ones I'd count it, but in isolation it's pretty weak.

That is kind of it. Given the character's obscurity even within the franchise - I doubt he'd break into most Joe fans' top 5 Dreadnoks, I doubt print material will bring up more than passing mentions. I would say Merge with List of Cobra characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep for all those nominations. While it is likely that some or many of the nominated G.I. Joe characters warrant merging, it is hard to believe that the required WP:BEFORE has actually been done for all of them. It's impossible to have been done properly in the mere minute(s) between the posting of the nomination. Anonrfjwhuikdzz has already summed up very well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) why things should not be done like this, and I hope this will be reflected in the close. The way it has been done, these nomations are wasting editor's time. A merge discussion on the character's talk page would be a more suitable avenue to address concerns. Daranios (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios I actually think having this one relisted to centralise discussion, allow time to properly check sources and possibly serve as a template for the ones that do need merging might be helpful.

Comment: @BD2412 @Liz confusingly, while List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters is named like a franchise catch-all page, it actually seems to only list the members of the G.I. Joe Team; List of Cobra characters covers the baddies, of which Thrasher was/is one. Therefore the latter makes a better merge target (though honestly both lists should be merged into a single franchise one as I can think of at least three characters who've changed sides, but that's a discussion for elsewhere). BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BoomboxTestarossa: Fair enough from my side, one should be manageable. Just pinging the other procedural keep !voters/commentators to let them know this one should be treated differently @BOZ, Rtkat3, Iljhgtn, Anonrfjwhuikdzz, and Oaktree b:. Daranios (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Cobra characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. The Ultimate Guide to G.I. Joe 1982-1994, The Ultimate Guide to G.I. Joe 1982-1994: Identification and Price Guide and The G.I. Joe Roster, p. 245 would provide the minimum coverage with regard to notability, but they more or less only have plot summary (although I cannot see p. 246). The CBR article has some commentary, but should not be used for notability. So overall, I think a section in a list is best. Daranios (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. I sympathize that 30+ discussions is far too many to handle from a single editor. Now that this is narrowed to one, it is easier to review and come to a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:57, 17 April 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.

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 procedural close‎. Part of a mass, low-effort, deficient AfD nominations that show no attempt at a WP:BEFORE. There is currently a proposal to amend the Speedy Keep policy to include such nominations. However, absent such amendment, I exercise my discretion to close this based on consensus that the nomination was an insufficient basis for substantive discussion. Any editor may renominate this with a bona fide attempt at addressing sources and relevant guidelines. Conversely, any editor may start a merge discussion on the article's Talk page, or BOLDly proceed with a merger if appropriate. Owen× ☎ 12:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grunt (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; almost only mentioned in (almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials. Additional mentions are really trivial. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. This can be broken out into an article again if the section is expanded with third-party sources sufficient to show independent notability. BD2412 T 20:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per various arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) (which no one wanted to copy to all of the simultaneous 52 AFDs of the same topic area). BOZ (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per this mass of nominations and the arguments already laid out by BOZ and others. Close Keep all of these G.I. Joe pages. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for all those nominations. While it is likely that some or many of the nominated G.I. Joe characters warrant merging, it is hard to believe that the required WP:BEFORE has actually been done for all of them. It's impossible to have been done properly in the mere minute(s) between the posting of the nomination. Anonrfjwhuikdzz has already summed up very well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) why things should not be done like this, and I hope this will be reflected in the close. The way it has been done, these nomations are wasting editor's time. A merge discussion on the character's talk page would be a more suitable avenue to address concerns. Daranios (talk) 10:08, 16 April 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.

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 procedural close‎. Part of a mass, low-effort, deficient AfD nominations that show no attempt at a WP:BEFORE. There is currently a proposal to amend the Speedy Keep policy to include such nominations. However, absent such amendment, I exercise my discretion to close this based on consensus that the nomination was an insufficient basis for substantive discussion. Any editor may renominate this with a bona fide attempt at addressing sources and relevant guidelines. Conversely, any editor may start a merge discussion on the article's Talk page, or BOLDly proceed with a merger if appropriate. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flash (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in primary G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. This can be broken out into an article again if the section is expanded with third-party sources sufficient to show independent notability. BD2412 T 20:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per various arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) (which no one wanted to copy to all of the simultaneous 52 AFDs of the same topic area). BOZ (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per this mass of nominations and the arguments already laid out by BOZ and others. Close Keep all of these G.I. Joe pages. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for all those nominations. While it is likely that some or many of the nominated G.I. Joe characters warrant merging, it is hard to believe that the required WP:BEFORE has actually been done for all of them. It's impossible to have been done properly in the mere minute(s) between the posting of the nomination. Anonrfjwhuikdzz has already summed up very well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) why things should not be done like this, and I hope this will be reflected in the close. The way it has been done, these nomations are wasting editor's time. A merge discussion on the character's talk page would be a more suitable avenue to address concerns. Daranios (talk) 10:08, 16 April 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.

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 procedural keep‎. per the other G.I. Joe AfDs Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stone (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. This can be broken out into an article again if the section is expanded with third-party sources sufficient to show independent notability. BD2412 T 20:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per WP:ATD. This doesn't demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, but editors can figure out if any verifiable content can be WP:PRESERVEd at the redirect target. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per various arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) (which no one wanted to copy to all of the simultaneous 52 AFDs of the same topic area). BOZ (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per this mass of nominations and the arguments already laid out by BOZ and others. Close Keep all of these G.I. Joe pages. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for all those nominations. While it is likely that some or many of the nominated G.I. Joe characters warrant merging, it is hard to believe that the required WP:BEFORE has actually been done for all of them. It's impossible to have been done properly in the mere minute(s) between the posting of the nomination. Anonrfjwhuikdzz has already summed up very well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) why things should not be done like this, and I hope this will be reflected in the close. The way it has been done, these nomations are wasting editor's time. A merge discussion on the character's talk page would be a more suitable avenue to address concerns. Daranios (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Bold text[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.

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 procedural close‎. Part of a mass, low-effort, deficient AfD nominations that show no attempt at a WP:BEFORE. There is currently a proposal to amend the Speedy Keep policy to include such nominations. However, absent such amendment, I exercise my discretion to close this based on consensus that the nomination was an insufficient basis for substantive discussion. Any editor may renominate this with a bona fide attempt at addressing sources and relevant guidelines. Conversely, any editor may start a merge discussion on the article's Talk page, or BOLDly proceed with a merger if appropriate. Owen× ☎ 12:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shockwave (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. This can be broken out into an article again if the section is expanded with third-party sources sufficient to show independent notability. BD2412 T 20:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per various arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) (which no one wanted to copy to all of the simultaneous 52 AFDs of the same topic area). BOZ (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per this mass of nominations and the arguments already laid out by BOZ and others. Close Keep all of these G.I. Joe pages. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for all those nominations. While it is likely that some or many of the nominated G.I. Joe characters warrant merging, it is hard to believe that the required WP:BEFORE has actually been done for all of them. It's impossible to have been done properly in the mere minute(s) between the posting of the nomination. Anonrfjwhuikdzz has already summed up very well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) why things should not be done like this, and I hope this will be reflected in the close. The way it has been done, these nomations are wasting editor's time. A merge discussion on the character's talk page would be a more suitable avenue to address concerns. Daranios (talk) 10:07, 16 April 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.

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 procedural close‎. Part of a mass, low-effort, deficient AfD nominations that show no attempt at a WP:BEFORE. There is currently a proposal to amend the Speedy Keep policy to include such nominations. However, absent such amendment, I exercise my discretion to close this based on consensus that the nomination was an insufficient basis for substantive discussion. Any editor may renominate this with a bona fide attempt at addressing sources and relevant guidelines. Conversely, any editor may start a merge discussion on the article's Talk page, or BOLDly proceed with a merger if appropriate. Owen× ☎ 12:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Six (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. This can be broken out into an article again if the section is expanded with third-party sources sufficient to show independent notability. BD2412 T 20:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per various arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) (which no one wanted to copy to all of the simultaneous 52 AFDs of the same topic area). BOZ (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per this mass of nominations and the arguments already laid out by BOZ and others. Close Keep all of these G.I. Joe pages. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for all those nominations. While it is likely that some or many of the nominated G.I. Joe characters warrant merging, it is hard to believe that the required WP:BEFORE has actually been done for all of them. It's impossible to have been done properly in the mere minute(s) between the posting of the nomination. Anonrfjwhuikdzz has already summed up very well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) why things should not be done like this, and I hope this will be reflected in the close. The way it has been done, these nomations are wasting editor's time. A merge discussion on the character's talk page would be a more suitable avenue to address concerns. Daranios (talk) 10:07, 16 April 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.

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 procedural close‎. Part of a mass, low-effort, deficient AfD nominations that show no attempt at a WP:BEFORE. There is currently a proposal to amend the Speedy Keep policy to include such nominations. However, absent such amendment, I exercise my discretion to close this based on consensus that the nomination was an insufficient basis for substantive discussion. Any editor may renominate this with a bona fide attempt at addressing sources and relevant guidelines. Conversely, any editor may start a merge discussion on the article's Talk page, or BOLDly proceed with a merger if appropriate. Owen× ☎ 12:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. This can be broken out into an article again if the section is expanded with third-party sources sufficient to show independent notability. BD2412 T 20:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: procedural vote on grounds of poor BEFORE. This is a scab I can't seem to stop picking. Again, the nomination only seems to be discussing the sources currently present in the article, and not sources easily findable through the most basic Google search.

Some of those are probably passing mentions; some are probably on the list of sites that aren't allowed because *smokebomb*, but what most are not is "(almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials", and the ones that are Joe branded stuff seem to be from legit publishers rather than directly licenced piffle.

If AfD was fit for purpose there would be devices to stop this sort of flood; sanctioning those who repeatedly do not conduct adequate BEFORE; preventing people misusing AfD for articles they believe should be merges or redirects; and dealing with any attempts to game the system. But too many closers like deleting pages, so that will never happen. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep per various arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) (which no one wanted to copy to all of the simultaneous 52 AFDs of the same topic area) and per arguments made here about potential sources. BOZ (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per this mass of nominations and the arguments already laid out by BOZ and others. Close Keep all of these G.I. Joe pages. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for all those nominations. While it is likely that some or many of the nominated G.I. Joe characters warrant merging, it is hard to believe that the required WP:BEFORE has actually been done for all of them. It's impossible to have been done properly in the mere minute(s) between the posting of the nomination. Anonrfjwhuikdzz has already summed up very well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) why things should not be done like this, and I hope this will be reflected in the close. The way it has been done, these nomations are wasting editor's time. Daranios (talk) 10:07, 16 April 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.

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 procedural close‎. Part of a mass, low-effort, deficient AfD nominations that show no attempt at a WP:BEFORE. There is currently a proposal to amend the Speedy Keep policy to include such nominations. However, absent such amendment, I exercise my discretion to close this based on consensus that the nomination was an insufficient basis for substantive discussion. Any editor may renominate this with a bona fide attempt at addressing sources and relevant guidelines. Conversely, any editor may start a merge discussion on the article's Talk page, or BOLDly proceed with a merger if appropriate. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copperhead (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. This can be broken out into an article again if the section is expanded with third-party sources sufficient to show independent notability. BD2412 T 20:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per various arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) (which no one wanted to copy to all of the simultaneous 52 AFDs of the same topic area). BOZ (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per this mass of nominations and the arguments already laid out by BOZ and others. Close Keep all of these G.I. Joe pages. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for all those nominations. While it is likely that some or many of the nominated G.I. Joe characters warrant merging, it is hard to believe that the required WP:BEFORE has actually been done for all of them. It's impossible to have been done properly in the mere minute(s) between the posting of the nomination. Anonrfjwhuikdzz has already summed up very well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) why things should not be done like this, and I hope this will be reflected in the close. The way it has been done, these nomations are wasting editor's time. Daranios (talk) 10:06, 16 April 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.

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 procedural close‎. Part of a mass, low-effort, deficient AfD nominations that show no attempt at a WP:BEFORE. There is currently a proposal to amend the Speedy Keep policy to include such nominations. However, absent such amendment, I exercise my discretion to close this based on consensus that the nomination was an insufficient basis for substantive discussion. Any editor may renominate this with a bona fide attempt at addressing sources and relevant guidelines. Conversely, any editor may start a merge discussion on the article's Talk page, or BOLDly proceed with a merger if appropriate. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Major Bludd

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. This can be broken out into an article again if the section is expanded with third-party sources sufficient to show independent notability. BD2412 T 20:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Cobra characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep due to suspect BEFORE. Potential sources that are not "(almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials".

Again, not sure if it's enough to sway into notability but there's a bit more out there for many Joe characters (particularly the ones who had sizable roles in the cartoon) than I expected. To the extent that I'm wondering if I'm using the same Google as everyone else. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, never seen an AfD vote that doesn't even ostense to assert about an article or its subject's notability before. Thanks for looking, and I'll take a look at these sources and follow up here, if you don't get around to reading and commenting on the sources you brought here first. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't those sources show up on your BEFORE? They're simple Google Book/News results, which I went maybe three pages deep on. If you weren't previously aware of those sources and need to follow up on them now or for me or someone else to do it, you have not conducted adequate BEFORE. And if you've not conducted adequate BEFORE for fifty-something nominations that means you've spammed AfD for nothing. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did see most of these and I still think this article should be merged because its subject isn’t notable enough and there’s not much to discuss about him outside of primary-sourced plot summaries. A handful of them I haven’t encountered, though. I was just being polite since this vote is like the tenth salty comment about me that I’ve seen you make on my Watchlist. Re: my profound incompetence/evil, that sounds like a discussion for my Talk page, not this deletion discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need to "take a look at these sources and follow up here" if you've seen them before?
Why doesn't your nomination here include a note that there are some links out there but for whatever reason they're not enough to make the article notable, but instead a misleading and incomplete rationale?
How is there around a minute between most of these nominations if you're conducting thorough BEFORE?
Why are you nominating articles for deletion if you think they should be redirected?
Why do you think it is acceptable for you to be so slapdash and for other editors to run around looking for and evaluating sources you can't be bothered to "take a look" at before triggering an AfD, or before raising concerns on talk pages?

Trying to worm around that I'm calling you 'evil' or that you're getting 'salty' comments when you seem to expect other editors to put more time in than you can be bothered to seems like a bit of a reach, TBH. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fasho ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I think it's fair game to discuss how you have compiled an AfD on an AfD page, however much you would like to project that the only possible objection anyone could have to the way you've done so is somehow personally motivated. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep per various arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) (which no one wanted to copy to all of the simultaneous 52 AFDs of the same topic area) and per arguments made here about potential sources. BOZ (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per this mass of nominations and the arguments already laid out by BOZ and others. Close Keep all of these G.I. Joe pages. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for all those nominations. While it is likely that some or many of the nominated G.I. Joe characters warrant merging, it is hard to believe that the required WP:BEFORE has actually been done for all of them. It's impossible to have been done properly in the mere minute(s) between the posting of the nomination. Anonrfjwhuikdzz has already summed up very well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) why things should not be done like this, and I hope this will be reflected in the close. The way it has been done, these nomations are wasting editor's time. Daranios (talk) 10:06, 16 April 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.

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 procedural close‎. Part of a mass, low-effort, deficient AfD nominations that show no attempt at a WP:BEFORE. There is currently a proposal to amend the Speedy Keep policy to include such nominations. However, absent such amendment, I exercise my discretion to close this based on consensus that the nomination was an insufficient basis for substantive discussion. Any editor may renominate this with a bona fide attempt at addressing sources and relevant guidelines. Conversely, any editor may start a merge discussion on the article's Talk page, or BOLDly proceed with a merger if appropriate. Owen× ☎ 12:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Low-Light (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost exclusively primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. This can be broken out into an article again if the section is expanded with third-party sources sufficient to show independent notability. BD2412 T 20:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per various arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) (which no one wanted to copy to all of the simultaneous 52 AFDs of the same topic area). BOZ (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per this mass of nominations and the arguments already laid out by BOZ and others. Close Keep all of these G.I. Joe pages. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for all those nominations. While it is likely that some or many of the nominated G.I. Joe characters warrant merging, it is hard to believe that the required WP:BEFORE has actually been done for all of them. It's impossible to have been done properly in the mere minute(s) between the posting of the nomination. Anonrfjwhuikdzz has already summed up very well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) why things should not be done like this, and I hope this will be reflected in the close. The way it has been done, these nomations are wasting editor's time. Daranios (talk) 10:06, 16 April 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.

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 procedural keep‎. Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clutch (G.I. Joe). (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 12:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Kessler

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in primary G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. This can be broken out into an article again if the section is expanded with third-party sources sufficient to show independent notability. BD2412 T 20:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per various arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) (which no one wanted to copy to all of the simultaneous 52 AFDs of the same topic area). BOZ (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per this mass of nominations and the arguments already laid out by BOZ and others. Close Keep all of these G.I. Joe pages. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for all those nominations. While it is likely that some or many of the nominated G.I. Joe characters warrant merging, it is hard to believe that the required WP:BEFORE has actually been done for all of them. It's impossible to have been done properly in the mere minute(s) between the posting of the nomination. Anonrfjwhuikdzz has already summed up very well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) why things should not be done like this, and I hope this will be reflected in the close. The way it has been done, these nomations are wasting editor's time. Daranios (talk) 10:06, 16 April 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.

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 procedural keep‎. Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clutch (G.I. Joe). (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 12:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mercer (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost only primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. This can be broken out into an article again if the section is expanded with third-party sources sufficient to show independent notability. BD2412 T 20:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per various arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) (which no one wanted to copy to all of the simultaneous 52 AFDs of the same topic area). BOZ (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per this mass of nominations and the arguments already laid out by BOZ and others. Close Keep all of these G.I. Joe pages. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for all those nominations. While it is likely that some or many of the nominated G.I. Joe characters warrant merging, it is hard to believe that the required WP:BEFORE has actually been done for all of them. It's impossible to have been done properly in the mere minute(s) between the posting of the nomination. Anonrfjwhuikdzz has already summed up very well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) why things should not be done like this, and I hope this will be reflected in the close. The way it has been done, these nomations are wasting editor's time. Daranios (talk) 10:06, 16 April 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.

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 procedural keep‎. Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clutch (G.I. Joe). (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 12:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost only primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. The mention in an essay (in the last section) is completely trivial and undue. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. This can be broken out into an article again if the section is expanded with third-party sources sufficient to show independent notability. BD2412 T 20:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment again, the problem with all these nominations is we could do with examining sources that cover multiple characters on a test case. To my eye https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wvYYEQAAQBAJ and https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Ultimate_Guide_to_G_I_Joe_1982_1994/_BNjDwAAQBAJ look like legit secondary sources, not licenced by the toy company and published by what seem to be legit if niche publishers. Obviously we'd then have to sift to find out if they're only mentioned in a list of toys or there's something more in depth, but there's no point in doing that without knowing if the source is admissible, and YMMV. Likewise, I personally can't keep track of which GNews sites count. Not a fan of listicles, but depending on what out of CBR, Screenrant, Hard Times, Geek Tyrant, Comics Alliance, Cracked etc. count again they'd get a lot of articles over the line, and even provide some sort of reception section even if it was "This website said they dressed like an idiot". BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry I keep marking edits as minor, though. Muscle memory =( BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per various arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) (which no one wanted to copy to all of the simultaneous 52 AFDs of the same topic area) and per arguments made here about potential sources. BOZ (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per this mass of nominations and the arguments already laid out by BOZ and others. Close Keep all of these G.I. Joe pages. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for all those nominations. While it is likely that some or many of the nominated G.I. Joe characters warrant merging, it is hard to believe that the required WP:BEFORE has actually been done for all of them. It's impossible to have been done properly in the mere minute(s) between the posting of the nomination. Anonrfjwhuikdzz has already summed up very well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) why things should not be done like this, and I hope this will be reflected in the close. The way it has been done, these nomations are wasting editor's time. Daranios (talk) 10:06, 16 April 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.

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 procedural keep‎. Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clutch (G.I. Joe). (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 12:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Job (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only mentioned in (almost only primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. This can be broken out into an article again if the section is expanded with third-party sources sufficient to show independent notability. BD2412 T 20:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per various arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) (which no one wanted to copy to all of the simultaneous 52 AFDs of the same topic area). BOZ (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per this mass of nominations and the arguments already laid out by BOZ and others. Close Keep all of these G.I. Joe pages. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for all those nominations. While it is likely that some or many of the nominated G.I. Joe characters warrant merging, it is hard to believe that the required WP:BEFORE has actually been done for all of them. It's impossible to have been done properly in the mere minute(s) between the posting of the nomination. Anonrfjwhuikdzz has already summed up very well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) why things should not be done like this, and I hope this will be reflected in the close. The way it has been done, these nomations are wasting editor's time. Daranios (talk) 10:05, 16 April 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.

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 keep‎ based on the majority of votes and discussion. (non-admin closure) Imwin567 (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Mindbender

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

No demonstrated notability; only covered in (mostly primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, as a particularly high-profile and widely adapted character in the media. BD2412 T 20:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the fact that is one of the elite members of Cobra Command and per the claims of @BD2412:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Last one of these I'm doing for now, but: -

"Dr. Mindbender" seems to often be used - from what I can tell it was the name printed on the toy's card back in 198-whatever. Not doing more than skimming quickly as it's not worth the effort when AfD is so badly run. But some of these are not as cut-and-dried as the nominator suggests. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep per various arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) (which no one wanted to copy to all of the simultaneous 52 AFDs of the same topic area) and per arguments made here about potential sources. BOZ (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for all those nominations. While it is likely that some or many of the nominated G.I. Joe characters warrant merging, it is hard to believe that the required WP:BEFORE has actually been done for all of them. It's impossible to have been done properly in the mere minute(s) between the posting of the nomination. Anonrfjwhuikdzz has already summed up very well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) why things should not be done like this, and I hope this will be reflected in the close. The way it has been done, these nomations are wasting editor's time. Daranios (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per this mass of nominations and the arguments already laid out by BOZ and others. Close Keep all of these G.I. Joe pages. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:47, 15 April 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.

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 procedural keep‎. No sources specific to this character were listed, but editors referred to another discussion where sources were found. Editors in that discussion also sought talk-page consensus about the reliability of certain sources before evaluating them at AfD. Since this specific article was not discussed in detail, there is no prejudice against a future renomination. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 12:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clutch (G.I. Joe)

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

No demonstrated notability; only covered in (mostly primary) G.I. Joe materials. Should be merged to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. This can be broken out into an article again if the section is expanded with third-party sources sufficient to show independent notability. BD2412 T 20:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per various arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) (which no one wanted to copy to all of the simultaneous 52 AFDs of the same topic area). BOZ (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for all those nominations. While it is likely that some or many of the nominated G.I. Joe characters warrant merging, it is hard to believe that the required WP:BEFORE has actually been done for all of them. It's impossible to have been done properly in the mere minute(s) between the posting of the nomination. Anonrfjwhuikdzz has already summed up very well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon (G.I. Joe) why things should not be done like this, and I hope this will be reflected in the close. The way it has been done, these nomations are wasting editor's time. Daranios (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per this mass of nominations and the arguments already laid out by BOZ and others. Close Keep all of these G.I. Joe pages. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:48, 15 April 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.

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 Cinesite. and merge any unique encyclopedic content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

L'Atelier Animation

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

does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. The article lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources that establish notability Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Comics and animation, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. fails WP:SIRS fifteen thousand two hundred twenty nine (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not meet WP:GNG--Kopnakolicti (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I added films that L'Atelier Animation helped make. It has been profiled in reliable sources including Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Animation Magazine and Cartoon Brew. Kansas Reimer (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cinesite. I can see a lot of very niche trade references about the company ... though I can't see the Variety or Hollywood Reporter profiles (can you link them User:Kansas Reimer?). There's enough out there that delete would be overkill. But I'd need to be convinced that it couldn't be included in the website for the company, rather than this division. Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cinesite as not independently notable but relevant to that article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relistng. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the studio may have notability, however, in-depth coverage is not sufficient at the moment Cinder painter (talk) 09:56, 18 April 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.

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 keep‎. I see strong arguments in favour of merging the page into My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. But absent a consensus against keeping this as a standalone article, a merge cannot be picked as an alternative to retention. I recommend starting a merge proposal on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 22:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Twilight Sparkle, Teacher for a Day

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

Non-notable app; no secondary coverage whatsoever ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Software. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are already reviews from Kirkus, Common Sense Media, and Wired in the article. I also found mentions in Kotaku and 148Apps. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. I think it toes the line of passing and not passing GNG, but there is a clear merge target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. MidnightMayhem 14:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reviews in Wired, CSM and Kirkus Reviews are enough for GNG. The article needs better sourcing and probably could do with some expansion but AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Pamzeis (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Pamzeis that the Wired, Common Sense Media, and Kirkus Reviews reviews already on the article appear to meet GNG. 148Apps is noted as a situational source on WP:VG/RS, but the review linked by Vacant0 is also fairly in-depth. Waxworker (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Pamzeis and Waxworker above. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 06:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, arguments are divided between Merge and Keep, not headed towards a Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources are enough to pass GNG (though the article could definitely be improved).

I originally supported merging to the MLP article, but I changed my mind, since the MLP article only has a very general overview of other media in the "Other Media" section. Weak support for a stand-alone article. ApexParagon (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as before. Demonstrates little notability outside of reviews, so a fairly short and general overview at the proposed target article is sufficient. MimirIsSmart (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Merge is entirely inappropriate, that article is already full and doesn't have an appropriate space to hold the information in this article. I think the sources above already show that it has enough notability to have an article. Not every article has to be a featured article. Moritoriko (talk) 03:39, 18 April 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.

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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Flashpoint (comics) characters

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

A list of characters for a specific comic book story arc. This is not separately notable as a concept, as the characters of Flashpoint have received little coverage individually of their mainline counterparts. A search yielded nothing. All major plot relevant characters are covered in the plot section of Flashpoint, so I would support a Redirect here as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A reasonable WP:SPLIT. Remember that WP:NLIST indicates that list can be kept for navigational reasons; adding sources and removing material/spitting the page is necessary, though, which are cleanup issues. -Mushy Yank. 09:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims that were made by @Mushy Yank:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, a core content policy. There isn't a single non-primary source here, nor does there seem to be any discussion in sources of this grouping per WP:NLIST. This is merely the broader characters that appear in some story arc, many of which have articles due to independent notability, but not because they're in this specific arc, and so Mushy Yank's claim that this is a valid navigational list is just flat wrong. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but precisely because most characters have a page, a list is even more helpful in terms of navigation. WP:NLIST clearly states that although "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists" "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." (emphasis mine; but maybe that too is "flat wrong"_. Also in terms of size, put back all this content in the article would make navigation extremely uneasy and a split is necessary. (But you have sources you can add if you wish, addressing the topic as a set: https://www.cbr.com/dc-flashpoint-heroes-ranked/ ; https://comicvine.gamespot.com/flashpoint-universe/4015-56524/characters/ ; https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/08/30/flashpoint-all-the-major-heroes-and-villains-in-the-epic-dc-flash-story https://comicsalliance.com/flashpoint-dc-comics/ and so on and they are also covered "in this specific arc" in The DC Comics Universe: Critical Essays. (2022). McFarland Publishing, pp. 118, 120 for example). -Mushy Yank. 00:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I almost forgot. You now have sources you can add but your reference to WP:OR was absolutely not relevant anyway because regarding content of fiction, the fiction itself is the source (a guideline); see the essay Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary for further information: "For especially large or complex fictional works, certain elements may be split off into additional articles per WP:SS. Such related articles should be clearly cross-linked so that readers can understand the full context and impact of the work. Such an article may have what amounts to a different kind of plot summary. For instance, an article on Hamlet the character as opposed to Hamlet the play would just summarize Prince Hamlet's individual plot arc through the play. You might begin the section with something like, "The play charts Hamlet's tragic downfall as he pursues revenge against his uncle Claudius", and then summarize the events that contribute to that tragic downfall, using all the same guidelines you would in general." That is precisely the case of this list, from a split of the main page. -Mushy Yank. 00:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these bar the Valnet source (Which doesn't contribute to notability) are all either just character listings or plot summaries. While verifiable, being verifiable does not make a subject notable. Additionally, the article still fails Wikipedia:PLOT, as this would be all plot summary without any form of notability tied to it. Per MOS:CHARACTERS: "do not include every peripheral character, or every detail about a major character; this is not an indiscriminate collection of information." This list clearly fails this criteria, and if the main Flashpoint article needs a small section, so be it. But a whole list is not necessary for a subject of Flashpoint's size and the relative non-notability of this particular subset of characters. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This list serves no recognized navigational purpose, and it is OR. While the source material can serve as a source for basic plot summaries, as noted above, that doesn't extend to vast swaths of detailed, opinionated material about dozens and dozens of characters, which is what this list is. I spot checked two of those sources; one was WP:UGC, and another had no information about the topic. If you actually want to present sources, please stick to usable ones. Regardless, it's hard to see how such an overly detailed, crufty list such as this is needed. If you want to include a main character list in the main article, then do so, but this isn't needed (or notable). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the above keep !votes, it does not meet WP:NLIST. Orientls (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claims made by @Mushy Yank An editor from Mars (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What claims? How do you get around the fact that there isn't a single source in this list, and it's complete OR? Or that there's no sourcing to demonstrate this as some kind of notable grouping? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per WP:ATD. Articles need WP:SIGCOV, and claims only go so far. In terms of navigation, links already exist at the main Flashpoint (comics) article, and we could even add them to the template. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list has no sources included that are not just the comics themselves, and none of the keep votes have offered a valid argument for how this passes WP:LISTN. Any notability for the Flashpoint (comics) series itself does not automatically extend to justify listing a multitude of minor characters that have no reliable sources that actually discuss them in any meaningful way. The few characters that were central to the plot of the comic are already described at the main article's plot summary. Rorshacma (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As a list, don't think meets WP:NLIST. And I see that many Categories exists around these characters, which is good enough for grouping. Asteramellus (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator. DarkHorseHayhem (talk) 00:47, 25 April 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.

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 keep‎. Discussion has now tended towards there being sufficient sourcing for a standalone article Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marv (Sin City)

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

Minor comic book character. While there is a reception, it is just a summary of several listicles, in which the character takes at best a 24th place. Other than that, this is just a plot summary and a list of appearances in various media. This fails WP:GNG and at best could be redirected to the List of Sin City characters _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Sin City characters: the info currently in reception can be merged to the list, condensed to about a sentence, probably, and the rest of the article is just plot summary. Did a quick google and didn't find anything obvious -- it seems unlikely by assumption he needs his own article separate from Sin City. I don't know of a lot of reviews that only talk about one character except for the most famous works. (see below) Mrfoogles (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is not a "minor comic book character"!!!!! I've expanded the reception. Please take less Sin City-related articles to AfD or do thorough BEFORES, Piotrus. Marv clearly meets WP:GNG. Thank you.-Mushy Yank. 19:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 10:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Sin City characters - Mushy Yank has done good work, but in my opinion all of these are passing mentions of Marv, except for maybe the Dan Rempala book, so it still doesn't meet GNG. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tons of other sources exist; might add more if I have time. (and thank you but I beg to differ, most of the sources I added are not only "passing mentions"). -Mushy Yank. 16:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added a couple of things again. No time to do more but sources exist (a lot). -Mushy Yank. 17:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per all, as WP:ATD. I see WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and listicles that don't support a separate article, but could improve the character list. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look harder, please. To quote the essay you are citing: "Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." -Mushy Yank. 18:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed AGAIN since its AfD nomination. --Mushy Yank. 18:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Mushy Yank. I fail to see how these are all passing mentions. Madeleine (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mushy Yank and Madeleine961. Main character in a prominent property, with reasonable coverage. BD2412 T 19:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Need to determine an outcome as arguments are split between Keep and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per all above ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: not sure a relist was necessary as no merge !voter so far nor the nominator had responded to the significant GNG-level temporarily final expansion of the reception section (please note that I expanded the page in two phases and that much more exists), which seemed to address the nominator’s concern. So that new M !vote(s) -if based on "all above" and no other argument- should be weighed with that in mind. -Mushy Yank. 15:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still see three editors arguing for a Merge. Just because they weighed in to this AFD before your editing contributions to the article doesn't erase their arguments here. But since you object to the relisting, I'll leave this discussion for another closer to handle. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I cannot access all the sources cited in the Reception and interpretation section, but the ones I can, like "Everything I Need to Know, I Learned from Mickey Rourke Movies", have significant coverage of this character. It is also clear that merging all of this relevant content to a list where this character already has the longest entry would be hugely undue. Arguments such as the nominator's this is just a plot summary and a list of appearances in various media and Mrfoogles's the info currently in reception can be merged to the list, condensed to about a sentence have been thoroughly addressed by the subsequent improvement to the Reception section. Toadspike [Talk] 07:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is now enough heft to the reception, including content from decent sources, that I believe a standalone article is warranted. The article is in appalling shape, though - someone needs to take a hatchet to all the original research. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to keep -- reception is definitely expanded enough to show this needs its own article. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:07, 15 April 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.

Comics and animation proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Templates for discussion