Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wcquidditch (talk | contribs) at 00:11, 22 June 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_Callins (assisted)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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. If any editors want to create a Redirect from this page to a target article, feel free to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Callins

Benjamin Callins (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)

WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. As always, NACTOR is not automatically passed just because an article lists roles -- the notability test is in the reception of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them and their performances, not just the list of performances per se. But the footnotes here are almost all glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him in any non-trivial sense, and the only one that says more than two words about Benjamin Callins is an unreliable site that doesn't count toward GNG at all (and even the glancing namechecks aren't all from reliable or notability-building sources either, as for example one of them is just a film festival's self-published program calendar).
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dualpendel (talk • contribs) 16:20, 24 June 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 00:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Cities comics artists

Twin Cities comics artists (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 seems like WP:OR. The concept of "Twin Cities comics artists" does not appear to exist on Wikipedia. I've deroted the two refs that supposedly talk abou this and the first done does not seem to mention this term, or Twin Cities ([1], the other one is a news piece about Minnessota ([2]). The following few sentences have no reference and seem even more ORish. Most of the people mentioned in the list here don't have a reference. Even if they are indeed active in that area, this is a pretty niche and trivual grouping, like comic artists in the New York City or Californa or such would be. This seems to fail WP:GNG, WP:NLIST and WP:OR. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dflovett (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not opposed to draftify as ATD as article topic has potential though needs much polishing, as article has multiple issues aside from nom s points, found at least a couple of deadlinks, and checking deeper a lot of the citations seems primary sources. Lorraine Crane (talk) 09:24, 29 June 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 Big City Greens season 1. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Rises

Phoenix Rises (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)

Article seems to almost entirely be a plot summary. It only has one source, which is the episode itself. Nothing found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the image of the title card has a copyrighted image even though it was listed as Creative Commons license 2600:1003:B1B1:1960:BDDD:63DA:6256:410A (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big City Greens season 1 not notable enough for standalone article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:58, 19 June 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter New

Peter New (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)

I nominate this article for deletion because the subject is not notable and references do not show that the actor passes WP:NACTOR. as an IP I can not finish the nomination process. All of the references right now are unreliable or mentions with no sig cov 2600:1011:B03A:9C5:A43F:90D:A2C4:9E5C. (Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP) Toadspike [Talk] 22:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Two out of the three sources currently listed in the article are Youtube videos (unreliable) and the third is a passing mention from a source that does not appear to be independent from the subject. The subject inexplicably also has 37(!) translations on other language Wikipedias, which leads me to believe that there may be some WP:COI or WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY at play. Madeleine (talk) 17:26, 16 June 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 Rod Espinosa#Bibliography. Star Mississippi 02:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dinowars

Dinowars (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)

Only review I found is this one by Comics Bulletin: [3]. It alone is not enough for WP:GNG.

Note: I don't think redirection per WP:AtD is appropriate in this case. Instead, Dinowars should be a disambiguation page: 1 link to the comic and the other to video game DinoCity (Japanese title Dinowars). Mika1h (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Lorraine Crane’s comment above or simply Redirect to Rod Espinosa. I cant find more reviews, can’t see that it fulfils criteria for notability. Lijil (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Rod Espinosa, per Lijil and Lorraine Crane. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 00:06, 30 June 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 and move to Stacey Gregg. Owen× ☎ 13:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Jefferson

Stacy Jefferson (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)

No sources. Only external link is IMDb. User:Tankishguy talk :) say hi 21:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be worth noting that the article title probably should be Stacey Gregg (the page with that name has been deleted a few times previously). Don't think she was ever known as Stacy (without the e). She was also known for roles in the US as Stacey Maxwell, eg in The Virginian, The Monkees and Batman. In the UK she's known for roles in Crossroads https://www.newspapers.com/image/893742133 and playing Sandy in Grease alongside Richard Gere eg https://www.newspapers.com/image/840906998 There's a few more hits at https://www.newspapers.com/search/results/?keyword=%22Stacey+Gregg%22++&region=gb-eng worth checking the British Newspaper Archive as well, see also this two-page articles from the TV Times in 1971 (page 8-9) https://mcmweb.co.uk/tvtimes/1971/Nov%206th%201971.pdf Piecesofuk (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Stacey Gregg she meets WP:NACTOR. She has also been credited as Stacey Jefferson and Stacey Richardson. As well as voicing the roles mentioned in the current article, she played Daffy in all episodes of Tottering Towers and Nurse Baxter in 23 episodes of Crossroads from 1977-1978. On stage, she played Sandy opposite Richard Gere in the British premiere of Grease (musical), first in Coventry and then on the West End. As well as the coverage found by Piecesofuk, there is coverage and information about more roles in the British Newspaper Archive. I'll add more info and sources to the article. There appears to be another Stacey Gregg, probably also notable, who is director of Here Before and co-creator/director of other shows. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:38, 23 June 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 Big City Greens season 4#ep101 per WP:ATD-R, eliding the ATADD (WP:SOURCESEXIST) made twice by the same IP editor. No prejudice against restoration if third party, independent relible sources providing SIGCOV of the topic are found to demonstrate the notability this discussion failed therein to do. (non-admin closure) —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chip's Revenge

Chip's Revenge (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)

Article about a future television episode. Has no coverage on the episode itself and is little more than an article shell. One of the three sources is a forum. Could reasonably be made into a draft as a potential WP:ATD. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you can add many sources such as websites like the Disney website or even the tv guide 2600:1003:B1B1:1960:BDDD:63DA:6256:410A (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage from the broadcaster and TV Guide isn't significant, as basically all episodes receive this. There should be independent sources choosing to cover this episode in non-trivial ways. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:24, 26 June 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 List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters#The Cutie Mark Crusaders. I see a rough consensus that the mostly self-published sources are insufficient to establish independent notability. A better place to discuss this may be in a spinout proposal on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 16:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cutie Mark Crusaders

Cutie Mark Crusaders (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)

Recently created from redirect. Which is where, imo, it belongs; not sufficiently notable for standalone article. TheLongTone (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leslie Salas, Lorin Shahinian, ed. (2024-01-11). The Animated Dad: Essays on Father Figures in Cartoon Television. McFarland. ISBN 978-1-4766-5162-0.

    "The Cutie Mark Crusaders work as deuteragonists in comparison to Twilight Sparkle and her friends. They are a trio of fillies trying to get their cutie marks, the symbols located on an Equestrian's flank that dictates what their special talent is and which appears in adolescence. The group consists of Applejack's little sister Applebloom, Rarity's little sister Sweetie Belle, and Rainbow Dash's foster sister Scootaloo. Due to their shared parental connections to the main cast, there was little examination of them (save Scootaloo in note 5). While this comment mainly refers to the intended audience of young children, it is also geared toward a signifcant portion of the Brony audience that include individuals on the autism spectrum. [...] Scootaloo herself has symbiotic parents, as shown in the episode "The Last Crusade." Both work as "creature catchers", the Equestrian version of zoologists, and, while very different in looks, largely coalesce in their rought-and-tumble personalities."

  • Snider, Brandon T. (2017). My Little Pony. Volume II: Friendship Is Magic: The Elements of Harmony: The Official Guidebook. New York: Little, Brown Books for Young Readers. ISBN 978-0-316-43197-2.

    "Everypony is on a journey, but it's difficult for young ponies to be patient. All Apple Bloom, Scootaloo, and Sweetie Belle wanted to do was figure out who they were and what they were destined to do. They were desperate to discover their hidden talent, hoping a cutie mark would reveal itself and change their lives forever. Instead of worrying about it alone, they came together to form the ultimate support team: THE CUTIE MARK CRUSADERS. After a series of trials, the Crusaders successfully acquired their cutie marks and set out to prove their worth. Receiving a cutie mark doesn't mean they're done figuring everything out, of course. It simply means they're energized and on the right path. These feisty fillies are passionate about helping other young foals figure out their paths."

    "Apple Bloom, Scootaloo, and Sweetie Belle hoped that by trying a bunch of different things together, they'd get their cutie marks lickety-split! So the three friends formed a secret club called the Cutie Mark Crusaders, whose members were dedicated to trying as many things as possible. Although the fillies have tried many diverse activities, like baking and magic, their cutie marks have yet to reveal themselves. Unfortunately, some intolerant ponies have mocked the young trio for not being able to find their proper vocations yet. Thankfully, wise ponies such as Princess Celestia have encouraged the girls to not lose hope and to keep experiencing as many things as possible."

  • Blue, Jen A. (2013-08-31). My Little Po-Mo: Unauthorized Critical Essays on My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic Season One. pp. 134–139.

    "This is true on a trivial level; unlike the main characters, who are young adults with jobs, the Cutie Mark Crusaders are little girls of roughly the same age as the target audience of the show (perhaps slightly older, given the pubescent overtones surrounding getting one's cutie mark). Adult fans, on the other hand, frequently express difficulty identifying with the CMC. I can understand that difficulty, to an extent. The Cutie Mark Crusaders take screen time away from the Mane Six. Their stories frequently require the Mane Six to be “useless,” so that the CMC can retain the focus, which makes sense as adults frequently are useless within a child’s frame of reference, but nonetheless can feel like the series “disrespecting” its main characters in order to focus on one-off background characters. However, I think the anti-CMC portion of the fandom misses an essential feature of the CMC. The CMC, you see, are picked on and disliked by their peers. Later episodes show that they are easily swept up by their enthusiasms, and gifted with mechanical and technical tasks. And most of all, they are seeking to establish their identity by enthusiastically exploring their interests. To put it bluntly, they’re geeks. I argued back in Chapter 7 that Equestria is a nation of geeks, but the CMC are the stereotypical “geeks among geeks.”

    • GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. @TheLongTone: I noticed that you put the AfD notice on the wrong person's talk page; I was the person who created the article, not the person who created the redirect. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination process is automatedTheLongTone (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @GregariousMadness The second source, being an official guidebook that says it is licensed by Hasbro on the back, is not INDEPENDENT. The third source was published by CreateSpace, which means it is self-published; I see no indication that Jen A. Blue is a subject-matter expert here. Do you have any better sources to supplement these in your WP:THREE? Toadspike [Talk] 03:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, here's another source. TulsaKids is a monthly magazine with an editorial board, see [4].
  • Rittler, Tara (2017-12-19). "Cupcakes for Pinkie Pie: Lessons learned from Season One of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic". TulsaKids. Retrieved 2025-06-01.

    "“Call of the Cutie” marks the genesis of “The Cutie Mark Crusaders,” three young ponies who don’t yet have their cutie marks. [...] Apple Bloom and the other two ponies become instant friends and form a secret club, “The Cutie Mark Crusaders,” vowing to help one another on the quest to discover their passions and earn their cutie marks. While “Call of the Cutie” offers a nice lesson in being patient and not stressing out when you don’t know what you’re supposed to do with your life (a feeling I am all too familiar with!), “The Show Stoppers” has a moral that is even more compelling, I think. In this one, the Cutie Mark Crusaders further their quest by enrolling in a talent show, deciding to put on an amazing play. While it is obvious to everyone else which production role each of the Crusaders should assume, the young ponies can’t seem to realize that, if they just slow down and think about it, their special talents are already manifesting themselves. Scootaloo rides a scooter like no one else; Sweetie Belle can compose music and has a beautiful voice; Apple Bloom is a genius at construction. But when dividing up the tasks of singer, set/costume designer and choreographer, Sweetie Belle announces that she wants to do costumes because that’s what her older sister is good at. Scootaloo wants to do lead vocals because they’re performing a rock ballad, and presumably, that’s where the glory lies. Apple Bloom knows she’s not much of a dancer but does like karate, so her dance moves are all kicks and punches. The show is a disaster, predictably, but they end up getting the award for “Best Comedy Act.” Sadly, the Cutie Mark Crusaders decide that their true talent must be comedy, meaning that they will have to keep waiting for their cutie marks a while longer.

    • And another one, from SF Weekly (and also the author of Ponyville Confidential)
  • Connelly, Sherilyn (2012-04-25). "My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, Season 1, Episode 23". SF Weekly. Retrieved 2025-06-05.

    "In their latest attempt to earn their cutie marks, Apple Bloom, Sweetie Belle, and Scootaloo learn something that Stan, Kyle, Eric, and Kenny would later discover: They should never have gone ziplining. Spike had told them it was awesome, which just figures. No worse for the wear (and covered in tree sap for neither the first nor last time), they decide to ask to older ponies how they got their cutie marks. Scootaloo insists they should start with Rainbow Dash, her clearly being the coolest pony ever. On their way to find Rainbow Dash they collide with Apple Bloom's older sister Applejack, who's happy to tell her own origin story, much to Scootaloo's annoyance. [...] Sweetie Belle and Apple Bloom find the story to be touching, but Scootaloo doesn't care for it. I see the Cutie Mark Crusaders as an audience surrogate in this episode. In my experience, two out of three new viewers of MLP:FIM will accept the show's tone and world view, while the third will find it too earnest and unironic. And that's fine. To each their own, and no show is for everybody. (I also adore Mad Men -- I thought last Sunday's episode was just astonishing -- but to some people who are much smarter than me, it's unpalatable.) The Crusaders' next unintended stop is Fluttershy."

    • In addition, Jen A. Blue (formerly Jed A. Blue) and her book have been cited in multiple reliable publications in journals (see [5]), for example, in:
    • Crome, A. (2014). Reconsidering religion and fandom: Christian fan works in My Little Pony fandom. Culture and Religion, 15(4), 399–418. doi:10.1080/14755610.2014.98423
    • Shoujo Versus Seinen? Address and Reception in Puella Magi Madoka Magica (2011) (Catherine Butler)
    • My Little Pony: A transcultural phenomenon. (Ewan Kirkland)
    so I believe she can be used as WP:EXPERTSPS. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 03:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I really disagree that three citations is sufficient evidence of wide citation to meet the high bar of EXPERTSPS. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Wikipedians generally use 3 or more citations to determine notability, so how is it any different to determine whether the book is reliable if it has been cited in multiple peer-reviewed journals and publications? And the book has been cited in 4 peer-reviewed publications, not 3, per this link [6], including The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture, Journal of Popular Television, Culture and Religion: An Interdisciplinary Journal, and Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies. The author herself has been cited more times than that. For example, Shoujo Versus Seinen? Address and Reception in Puella Magi Madoka Magica cites Blue, and the paper is from the peer-reviewed journal Children's Literature in Education. It makes no sense to dismiss this source when multiple highly reputable peer-reviewed journals agree that the source is usable. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 16:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. A couple more sources:
  • Alvarez, Daniel. "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic 'One Bad Apple' Review". Unleash The Fanboy. Archived from the original on 2021-07-28.
  • Sims, Chris (2013-08-19). "The Cutie Mark Crusaders meddle with forces they do not understand (again) in 'My Little Pony Micro-series' #7". Comics Alliance.
    • GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 08:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eddie891: Would these sources be enough to re-consider a keep? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 08:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't think that a stand-alone article is merited here, honestly. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep GregariousMadness has provided examples of secondary source coverage, and there is currently a full article which is more substantive than 90% of other articles on Wikipedia. Because the subject matter is notable and the alternatives are either keep or merge, the question therefore becomes, would this subject be better served by a standalone article? Reading through the list article and the Cutie Mark article, I think that a merge would result in WP:UNDUE concerns and a redirect would result in quality portions of an article rooted in substantive coverage, being lost. Keep. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 14:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As it stands, virtually all of the content in this article is sourced to unreliable FANCRUFT sources (Equestria Daily, Blue 2014, Unleash the Fanbo), that I don't think there's actually too much to merge here. The other RS's don't have significant coverage of the 'Cutie Mark Crusaders' as a group- SF weekly has one sentence of coverage ("I see the Cutie Mark Crusaders as an audience surrogate in this episode."), and only really discuss the topic in the context of a couple episodes. I'm not seeing significant analysis of the group as a group to suggest that a stand alone article is merited here. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - GregariousMadness' sources show that the subject is clearly notable and has GNG and I agree with the above that a merge would be problematic. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore redirect. The sources are generally insufficiently reliable and/or independent, being mostly associated with the series' creators or fandom. Sandstein 10:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per above arguments. Subject meets WP:GNG. Madeleine (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore redirect to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters#The Cutie Mark Crusaders - Many of the sources cited are not reliable, and those that are, are not really in-depth analysis or reception of the characters. They are simply plot summaries or reviews of specific episodes or comics the character appeared in, with very little actual information outside of plot info. There quite simply is not enough significant coverage of the actual group of characters in reliable sources where a stand alone article would be justified. Rorshacma (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore redirect per Rorshacma. No local consensus to re-create this article. And more importantly, there is the global consensus that articles need reliable independent sources, let alone sources that give us more than plot summary. Otherwise there is very little sourced information that can't be covered at the original redirect target. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    restore redirect the source analysis is compelling and the throwaway keep votes haven't refuted it or shown how the sources meet gng. Spartaz Humbug! 12:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    At the risk of sounding like I am WP:BLUDGEONING, I believe I gave sufficient reasoning for why the sources are reliable. No one so far has refuted why Jen A. Blue's book is reliable given that it has been referenced in multiple reputable and reliable peer-reviewed journals. It is a common step to verify whether a source of questionable reliability is used in verifiably reputable sources, and I have shown this to be true, but none of the redirect !votes have shown why my argument fails. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 16:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's rather late for me to comment on the specific case as I hadn't looked at this until recently, but in general, as a matter of policy, EXPERTSPS require prior publication in the field (so that reliability can be inferred from just the author rather than jointly through the author and publication process) rather than citation. "Usage by other sources" without explicit positive comment is typically considered for traditionally published sources, though is rather weak evidence even then. It would be very unusual for mere citation to overcome the presumption of weaker fact checking and accuracy when something is known to be self-published and there is no independent editorial review. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:56, 24 June 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=1296743506"