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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Aaron Liu (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

/mlp/

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

Fails WP:GNG, many of the existing references are either to unreliable sources, or do not mention the article's subject at all. Seems to be some WP:SYNTH going on as well. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it meets notability standards. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is an 18-page ethnographic study on Sexualities which describes and analyzes in /mlp/ in great detail. The paper is linked below, where the search term "/mlp/" shows up 68 times. In addition, there are other sources that describe /mlp/ and its function and/or users. The strongest 3 sources are given below; the first source is the strongest.

Bailey, John; Harvey, Brenna (2017). "'That pony is real sexy': My Little Pony fans, sexual abjection, and the politics of masculinity online". Sexualities. 22 (3): 325–342. doi:10.1177/1363460717731932.

"Through ethnographic observation of the My Little Pony (/mlp/) discussion board on the website 4chan, we find that these men construct a communal identity around their sexual desires." (The whole paper discusses /mlp/, so it is difficult to quote exactly which parts discuss it. I suggest clicking on the link and skimming through the paper to confirm that the topic of discussion is indeed /mlp/.)

Schimpf, Kaitlyn Elizabeth (October 2015). "Straight from the Horse's Mouth: A Case Study on the Adult Male Fans of My Little Pony". MacEwan University Student eJournal. 2 (1). doi:10.31542/j.muse.192.

Another case study. "This research began on the anonymous message board of 4chan, more specifically the board dedicated to My Little Pony fans, known as /mlp/. The first few visits were just to get a feel for the general themes of the daily threads—to understand what the fans talked about on a daily basis. These included threads such as the “Nightly Twilight Thread,” which discussed a new comic that featured this specific pony heavily as well as discussing “what kind of television/movies do you feel that Twilight would enjoy watching the most” (retrieved from 4chan.org/mlp on March 19, 2014). Another being a role-playing thread in which the poster plays as a pony in the fictional land of Equestria (4chan.org/mlp, March 19, 2014). After it was determined that the threads on these message boards were incredibly diverse and changed daily, it was necessary to narrow the search down to a key few themes. Still exclusively using [/mlp/], I narrowed down the search for threads discussing why these individuals loved the show so much. The search was also expanded to threads that discussed how fans are treated by outsiders. I purely waited for these conversations to be started by others, never prompting my own discussion. Due to this fact, it was not required to register as a user on any of these sites. I merely navigated through them as a guest and read through discussions that had already begun."

Tiffany, Kaitlyn (2020-06-23). "'My Little Pony' Fans Are Ready to Admit They Have a Nazi Problem". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2021-06-04.

"The fandom was born on 4chan, the largest den of chaos and toxic beliefs available on the internet. In 2012, a message board called /mlp/ was set up because My Little Pony conversation was taking up too much space on boards for TV and comics. It took off because there is nothing 4chan likes better than things spiraling out of control. [...] Now the real world and Equestria are colliding. Over the past few weeks, some My Little Pony fans have mocked the protests with racist fan art, most of which was posted to Derpibooru, then massively upvoted by /mlp/ users. One much-discussed image was a pony version of a white-nationalist meme that circulated after the launch of a SpaceX rocket to the International Space Station: a photo of the two white astronauts side by side with a photo of black protesters “rioting.” The artist replaced the black people in the image with cartoon zebras—which are awkwardly coded as African in the real My Little Pony universe, but often referred to on [/mlp/] with a portmanteau of zebra and the N-word. “Beautiful,” one [/mlp/] user responded to the image. “Perfect for subtle messaging.”"

GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 18:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree there are synth problems with the article's construction (I would try to limit the article's content to only sources that at least mention /mlp/) but it is notable as shown, and the synth isnt TNT worthy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While writing the article, I did have the same question. For example, in one of the Buzzfeed News articles, the author writes The following image was uploaded to 4chan over the weekend., but doesn't actually say it was uploaded to /mlp/. But the screenshots in the article shows that it was indeed uploaded to /mlp/ and not anywhere else on 4chan. What should be done in this case? Is it WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to write an infamous incident known as the "Rainbow Dash Cum Jar" gained notoriety when images of a Rainbow Dash figurine submerged in semen left to boil near a radiator were shared on /mlp/, or should I omit this entirely because the author never explicitly wrote "/mlp/"? I've actually run into this same problem in other articles, where authors will write "4chan" to mean "/mlp/" when it was evident that the content was actually posted on /mlp/. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 22:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GregariousMadness The screenshot is on the edge but if it is clearly verifiable in the image that relates to /mlp/ I would defend that, IMO. If anyone can look at the image and determine it was posted to the board without outside researxh that is not an OR problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GregariousMadness's assessment. The article needs work but there is clearly sufficient coverage from reliable sources on the topic. MidnightMayhem 10:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per sufficient sourcing. I considered a merge to Brony, but this redirects to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:48, 26 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. per WP:SNOW, there is no point in dragging this on. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kobolediator

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

Subject fails GNG where no significant coverage from independent and reliable sources where the sources talk above the subject in length and depth for verification Cassiopeia talk 23:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 23:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of importance or any coverage whatsoever. No suitable redirect target as parent work is also not notable. ~ A412 ^talk! 04:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This is an unsourced page about a video game character, which gives us no allegations of notability. Borderline speedy. Bearian (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per others. No notability present in this at all. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Too ridiculous to even need the AfD process. MimirIsSmart (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is speedyable. Video game content isn't A7 eligible, and it's not A11 eligible as it's not a product of the article creator. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of importance let alone notability, although doesn't fit WP:A7 (video game characters aren't in the list) so speedy deletion isn't an option. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability jolielover♥talk 06:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW close please, it's lio! | talk | work 06:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very clearly fails GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above rationale--Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, clearly fails GNG. GoldRomean (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no reliable sources that even begin to discuss this character. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV, among other policies. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:48, 22 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. ✗plicit 14:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Machine

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

None of the sources are reliable independent sources, and nothing better could be found. Fram (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Music, Comics and animation, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This character is not significantly discussed by reliable sources. Furthermore, this character is not the clear primary topic for the term "miracle machine". ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TIL that the character in those videos I watched as a kid has a name. No sourcing exists whatsoever for this, so delete. Honestly this could probably be speedied this is very niche. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a single source being used in the article is a reliable source, and searches are turning up next to nothing. Clearly fails the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No significant coverage. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all. It's possible that this could be alternately mentioned at an article about the video director / animator, if someone wanted to check for notability about them. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I say we should delete this but atleast give the character and animation a mention on the song's page. FridayFunkGaming291 (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2025 (GMT+3)

Delete - when I saw this I thought it would be Legion of Super-Heroes fancruft about the device eaten by Matter-Eater Lad. I found no evidence of notability, anyway. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:19, 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. Owen× ☎ 23:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albuquerque: THE MOVIE

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

Couldn't find any evidence of notability, only databases or unreliable sources. Fram (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Comics and animation, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we could find any sort of RS coverage for this - even just a mention - we could probably add this to the reception section on the song's article. So far I'm finding nothing that could be usable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it can be merged into the article for the song. HurricaneKappa (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per wp:gng - ample mention in user generated sources, but nothing reliable. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails wp:gng Iban14mxl (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While the animation has received many views, it has not been discussed by reliable sources. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:10, 23 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 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 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 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.

Comics and animation proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Templates for discussion