Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
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 delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harbinger Resistance

Harbinger Resistance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional organization from a comic that fails WP:GNG. I searched online and was unable to find anything. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:23, 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 redirect. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gojo (character)

Gojo (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been unsourced since 2023, all the Raj-specific sources I could find are unreliable, and people searching this are more likely looking for Satoru (which, to be fair, IS hatnoted but still). I know this because this article has gotten 433 pageviews in the past 30 days BUT the article on Satoru alone has gotten 15,160 in the past 10 User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 10:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, if most of the views are trying to find Gojo Satoru then a redirect will only be more confusing. I am open to being convinced. Moritoriko (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking it over and looking at the pages I think the article should be renamed to Gojo (Raj Comics) and that should be redirected to Raj Comics I think the current article name is too vague as we can see at the disambiguation page where there are 3 characters (partially) named Gojo. Moritoriko (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a redirect to the disambiguation page Gojō, where the character wasn't listed until just now. -- Reconrabbit 16:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raj Comics per above. Editors can continue the discussion outside AFD about whether there's a better target, such as a disambiguation page. The article doesn't have enough sources to met most of our policies. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While we have eyes on this, I would like opinions on this website as a source. Moritoriko (talk) 00:01, 30 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 23:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fadi Hakim

Fadi Hakim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a restaurateur and filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for restaurateurs or filmmakers. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage about their activities in media and/or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sources such as IMDb and the self-published websites of companies he's been directly affiliated with, which are not support for notability, with not even one hit of GNG-worthy coverage about him shown at all (let alone the several hits of GNG-worthy coverage it would take to pass GNG.)
There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the attempted notability claim hinges in part on a coffee shop while the creator's username was "JoeCoffee37". Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the updated page with substantial references updated. Fadi Hakim has been a major player in the Toronto restaurant scene for over 30 years and a major up and comer in the comic book publishing industry in the last 10 years. JoeCoffee37 (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JoeCoffee37 is only a gamertag that I have used for 20 years. I have no association with the beverage. JoeCoffee37 (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why are so many of the potentially good links 404s? Am I missing something? Also IMDB is not generally considered a source that confers notability as it's a user-generated database, and not all films or film creators have inherent notability. Elsewhere the few articles I'm getting on GNews are paywalled so it's hard to see if they're just passing mentions, though they seem like chirpy advertorials in the local press. I am also curious as the main editor's history is also centred almost entirely around the subject, which doesn't dispell a CoI, even if it's a good faith one. I would be up for a merge/redirect to Lev Gleason Publications as a compromise and to preserve article history, and would not object to a possible future article if half of the upcoming ventures ever come to anything and garner significant coverage.
However, as a professional comics cynic, it's often the case that some entrepreneur buys rights to a dormant property, says they're turning it into the next Avengers and nothing is ever, ever heard from it again - the Fantomah TV series for example seems to have been announced in 2023 and have nothing mentioned about it outside of user-generated sources. These include a Fandom Page created at the time by a user with the same name as the article creator and not a huge amount else, which seems very odd for an actual green-lighted TV series that is actually going to happen. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, Delete, possibly with prejudice. In the interest of putting off something I'm meant to be doing I had a bit of a closer look at the references. To my mind these are done in a disingenuous fashion - it has fifty refs, must be solid. But most are either 404s, user-generated or primary sources - often primary sources that do not mention the page subject.
Now, about the dead links.
Take This one; it's a 404, and is not indexed on the Wayback machine. There is a single hit on the site for "Fadi Hakim", a single quote at this press release. So... how did @JoeCoffee37 get the broken link when searching icv2 would have brought up the other? It's not the only one either. Same with Bleeding Cool - broken; only hit on the site is this, which again is a passing mention. So the question is how did the page creator find those links? It points to a page prepared offline some time ago, which is a weird thing for a random editor to do.
About the other links, the vast majority are just local business homepages which do not mention the page subject at all. Given the lack of genuine web hits on the matter, the only people who know Fadi Hakim is involved with, say, Canopy Fair Trade Coffee are people close enough to Fadi Hakim to pose a conflict of interest.
This is sort of the loop I am finding for most of the sources - coverage of them on independent websites is non-existent, suggesting only people close to the subject know what TV series they're planning or whatever.
The Comics Alliance interview is actually quite meaty but most other sources I can find are passing mentions confirming that Fadi Hakim currently owns Lev Gleason Publications, and are not enough to justify a standalone article. That and @JoeCoffee37 not disclosing an almost certain CoI and possibly intentionally cramming 40-odd useless 'references' in are enough to make me say delete, and to watch very closely for page recreation. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of fixing these links and would appreciate a little time. JoeCoffee37 (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails Notability, article isn’t well written, I gave the creator some tips on his talk page but was ignored, lacks improvement and most source are dead links, some are just passing mentions, primarily sourced to "IMDb" which is considered no reliable. I’ll pass after this. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 00:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in the process of removing the IMDb links and fixing the others. I would appreciate some time. JoeCoffee37 (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoeCoffee37 stop spamming this AFD with a copy and paste response on each votes and comments dropped by editors, I gave you a feedback on user talk page, make your statement about improvement on the article’s talk rather. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 01:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I am finding no sources showing anything more than "Hurray X Restaurant opened". This isn't helped by a number of other people sharing this name but I am reasonably sure I didn't miss any GNG worthy articles. As an aside about the CoI, I find this edit to be very suspect, an IP from Toronto (maybe) correcting a birthday with no sources, and throwing in some flowery language on top. Moritoriko (talk) 01:08, 24 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. (non-admin closure) Aaron Liu (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

/mlp/

/mlp/ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

  • 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]
    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]
    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

    Powtoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (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]

    • 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.

    Comics and animation proposed deletions

    Categories for discussion

    Redirects for discussion

    Templates for discussion

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Comics_and_animation&oldid=1287363586"