Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation
![]() | Points of interest related to Comics on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style – To-do |
![]() | Points of interest related to Animation on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
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.

watch |
- Related deletion sorting
Comics and animation
- Elise Allen (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)
Not convinced this person is notable. Yes she wrote a "New York Times bestseller", but even for that the primary reason it was a bestseller was because she coauthored it with Hilary Duff, and it seems likely many people bought it because they were fans of Duff – essentially ghostwriting in the open. She created some children's TV shows – even if those shows are notable, I don't think that necessarily makes her notable by extension. Note this article was already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elise_Allen in Feb 2020 but then recreated roughly 10 months later – and I'm not sure if anything had really changed between its deletion and its recreation. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: I suppose the Emmy nomination could be notable, but all we have for sourcing is a list with a name. I can't find sourcing about this person, so not enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Comics and animation, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Commenting as this is reaching the end of a week of AfD - I have so far found coverage of her and another book she wrote, The Traveling Marathoner (Fodor, 2006). That could certainly be added to the article. I'll see what else I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep I have added reviews of her books - not just those she co-authored, but there are multiple reviews for Populazzi (which has a WP article) and Twinchantment (which doesn't yet, but should). It looks like her book The Traveling Marathoner also had multiple reviews - I have added one, one in the Chicago Tribune is paywalled [1], and the Los Angeles Times says [2] that "For summer reading, Runner’s World recommended “The Traveling Marathoner: A Complete Guide to Top U.S. Races and Sightseeing on the Run.” So she meets WP:AUTHOR, even without considering her significant contributions (as developer, producer, co-creator, writer) to Princess Power, Rainbow High, Gabby Duran and the Unsittables, Rainbow Rangers, and multiple Barbie movies. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Which aspect of WP:AUTHOR do you think is fulfilled? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Criterion 3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Plenty of coverage on the things she wrote, but there isn't significant coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: Per RebeccaGreen. Meets NAUTHOR3 and 4(c). Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with RebeccaGreen and others that the article passes notability via WP:NAUTHOR #3 with multiple reviews in independent reliable secondary sources for the subject's books. Nnev66 (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- 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) 18:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Countryhumans (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)
Non-notable subject with no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Has already been deleted once and coverage has not improved since then. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Webcomics, and Internet. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be a very small internet subculture without notability. No coverage in reliable sources. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - Just another semi-random internet fandom, no evidence of passing WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 01:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- I originally created this page as a redirect to personification, if we can't find much reliable sources, we should make make it a redirect again. Also, the russian wikipedia article for Countryhumans has sources we could use--Thegoofhere (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: There are scholary notes on Countryhumans in Russian. I don't speak Russian and I doubt you guys do. If we could get a Russo, that would be great Thegoofhere (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: There are almost no reliable sources that discuss this topic in a meaningful way. The Russian iteration of Wikipedia has a single source that might be useful, but there are no other usable discussions of this fandom. A redirect would not make sense without a mention in the target article. However, this is far too minor to mention in a general article on national personifications. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I added 4 sources, so I'm more worried about the reception, significance, and influence of Countryhumans, since WP:PLOT applies
- Thegoofhere (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - none of the sources seem reliable. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Possible merge with Countryballs. Both articles are related. Although the Russian Countryhumans page has a few reliable sources like this Russian academic PDF (pp.153–158), it doesn't seem reasonable to have a standalone page about Countryhumans in English. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Merge with Countryballs. the origin of Countryhumans comes from Polandball, this is a reply from an Polandball fan. IndoMaja (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Merge Countryhumans with Countryballs as a small section. We've established that Countryhumans are notable, but don't really deserve a separate article.Thegoofhere (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)- I don't really get that, it can't be notable if there are only minimal PDFs discussing it, and I can't see if they have been peer reviewed. I don't see anything worth merging, and I don't see the point in cramming poorly sourced information into another article. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 16:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- Then I retract my statement. Delete. Thegoofhere (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't really get that, it can't be notable if there are only minimal PDFs discussing it, and I can't see if they have been peer reviewed. I don't see anything worth merging, and I don't see the point in cramming poorly sourced information into another article. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 16:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per the 3 above. Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - It is not notable. The last AFD was SNOW delete too. Its just an internet fad. Was thinking of merge, but this article is just poorly sourced. Not much to salvage here. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. Agreed that the article is poorly sourced and it barely passes any notability guidelines. Galaxybeing (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- 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.