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 redirect‎ to Great Lakes Avengers. asilvering (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grasshopper (character)

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

A minor comic book character who has literally no SIGCOV, only being referenced in Valnet sources. There is no possible notability I can find for this character, as a search yields nothing else. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:10, 3 May 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) 21:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: G in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Great Lakes Avengers, as all of them are members of that group, per the page, or List of Marvel Comics characters: G. As only one of them has lasted more than one issue, SIGCOV seems impossible to achieve. Definitely don't merge with a list of DC characters as they're from Marvel. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That typo has been corrected. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Apologies if I seemed passive-aggressive; just wanted to be explicit. Thanks for the fix. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Great Lakes Avengers - Group of joke characters that only appeared in a handful of actual issues, and has zero significant coverage in reliable sources that I can find. Merging does not seem necessary as the characters' extremely minimal plot is already fully covered throughout the main GLA article, so a simple Redirect would suffice. Rorshacma (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per all. This doesn't meet the standard of WP:SIGCOV without more quality sources. But there is a valid redirect target, and editors can figure out what is reliable enough to WP:PRESERVE at the target. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Great Lakes Avengers: As far as can be reasonably ascertained, these characters have not been meaningfully discussed by any reliable sources at all. However, they are briefly discussed in the main article on their fictional group. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:54, 8 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amouna al Mazyouna

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

A WP:BEFORE search didn't find any reliable sources, although there might be better coverage in Arabic. This was moved out of AfC by the creator after a few rejections, and it just doesn't seem ready for mainspace. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Arab Emirates. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Fancruft and WP:ADMASQ. Picture appears tp be a copyvio. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arabic search found no high quality sources, all spammy websites. Fails WP:GNG jolielover♥talk 19:16, 2 May 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 06:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Amouna al-Mazyouna episodes

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

Completely unsourced episode list for a show that doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines on its own. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Arab Emirates. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BuySomeApples, I have moved it back to the draftspace for now. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CF-501 Falcon: Please don't move articles to draftspace when it is already on AFD plus this is already draftified once thus a contensted draftification per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Miminity, Sorry. Will refrain from doing so in the future. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 13:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Potentially should share the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amouna al Mazyouna, bit the lack of referencing is an additional concern. Fails WP:GNG 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The show doesn't even have WP:GNG, this certainly doesn't jolielover♥talk 19:17, 2 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fred VII

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources. All the so-called references are GI Joe publications. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per lack of independent sources. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. Doesn't meet the sourcing standards to pass WP:SIGCOV. Someone can always make the case for a redirect, or just create one after the AFD. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no reliable sources that meaningfully discuss this fictional character. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable fictional character. The current article is nothing but extensive plot summaries sourced only to issues of comic books. Searches are not turning up any significant coverage in reliable sources, making this a failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 06:32, 8 May 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) ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarines: A Warhammer 40,000 Movie

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

Notability issues abound here. The article is very heavily comprised of detail from one primary sources - the film's website, with some non-notable coverage. The one thing the article has for it is a brief review by C. Robert Cargill (Massawyrm) for Ain't It Cool News, but there needs to be something else. Very limited reliable sources from a search, with search engine only yielding one Empire preview ([1]) that mostly just explains what Warhammer is. No reviews on Rotten Tomatoes except one from Sci Fi Movie Page which is now dead ([2]). A Google News search finds an article from Game Rant which does have some coverage in retrospectively assessing it ([3]) although the source is not exactly high-quality nor reliable (see WP:VG/S). Despite having some notable VAs, this is bafflingly obscure, had a limited release, and doesn't seem to have garnered much in the way of reviews or coverage. I'm not too familiar with the Film WikiProject but this feels pretty under the line for me. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Keep to Warhammer 40,000#Film, Aint It Cool News review is the only piece of significant coverage by a reliable source. Sci-Fi Movie Page doesn't seem like a reliable source (see archived review). "First look" by Empire doesn't count as significant coverage since it doesn't contain any critical analysis. AllMovie includes a rating [4], maybe a review was included before all reviews were removed from the site. Unless someone digs up that archived version, this article doesn't pass WP:GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Mika1h, assuming we can find a review that's archived that still isn't going to be enough to meet WP:GNG Mkdasher64 (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like it received a review from Martin Liebman of Blu-ray.com. I know the site's database info isn't usable, but I seem to remember seeing that the site reviews were (ie, not random user reviews). Is this still the case? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit wary. I'd expect to see some kind of information about what their editorial staff/process looks like, but I can't find anything like that on the site. hinnk (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was figuring. I typically avoid it like the plague, but I figured it would be worth mentioning just in case. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the Aint It Cool News review I found this critical review by Exclaim here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Changed my vote to keep since I found this review in Impact: [5]. Three reviews in Ain't It Cool News, Exclaim! and Impact are enough for notability. --Mika1h (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough secondary sources have been found to write a full article/establish notability. Daranios (talk) 10:48, 2 May 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 Harbinger (comic book). asilvering (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harbingers (Valiant Comics)

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

Fictional people that fail WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely unsourced, but found Langsdale, S., & Coody, E. R. (2020). Monstrous Women in Comics. University Press of Mississippi. https://books.google.com/books?id=PNXaDwAAQBAJ as the first hit in Scholar, suggesting there may be more out there. Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Harbinger (comic book) on the sole grounds of not having enough content not either already in or appropriate to said article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Harbinger (comic book).

ApexParagon (talk) 03:27, 4 May 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)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raj Comics, I think there could be a short description of the character there. Honestly that article needs work too but I can't read enough of the hindi sources to do it. Moritoriko (talk)

~~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. -- Recon rabbit 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]

Redirect to Raj_Comics#Characters_based_in_ancient_times. This will be better redirect to as it takes directly to the character where it is mentioned. RangersRus (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raj Comics per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:25, 3 May 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 [6][7][8], 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: [9], [10], [11], [12]. 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