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 no consensus‎. There is no consensus for deletion, and never will be, because the nomination was for a merge; please use WP:PROPMERGE for merge discussions. There is also no consensus here to merge the article. asilvering (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man's armor (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

Iron Man's armor (Marvel Cinematic Universe) (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 was created as a split from Iron Man's armor in other media that was later merged back to Iron Man's armor following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Man's armor in other media. There's no reason for the Marvel Cinematic Universe to be separated from Iron Man's armor anymore. Both articles are short enough that after merge they'd be within WP:PROSESIZE, and the Iron Man's armor contained a lot of unreferenced plotcruft that I recently removed (effectively the 'in other media' stuff). While there are sources that talk about how Iron Man looked in various movies, there's no reason to split this - it's also doing a disservice to the readers, most of whom will end up at the main IMA article and not see the good content in the article here; the Iron Man's armor article now has a tiny, one sentence section on IMA in other media, stating that "Iron Man's armors feature prominently in several films set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe." It should be replaced with the content of this article. I fail to see how the movie-universe armor has separate stand-alone notability versus its basic concept, and why it couldn't be merged. There was a discussion of this previously at Talk:Iron_Man's_armor#Merge_from_Iron_Man's_armor_(Marvel_Cinematic_Universe), but most comments were pretty much "just votes" with no meaningful rationale, IMHO. Anyway, as far reasons for deletions, I want to reiterate that this article is a bad WP:CFORK of dubious stand-alone WP:GNG that failed both in the past and now the logic of WP:SIZESPLIT. The fate of Iron Man's armor in other media was decided at AFD, the fate of the article that was split out of it should follow suit, given the failure of merge discussion to produce meaningful rationales (WP:NOVOTE). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. This is largely plot summary and nothing more, and I'm not seeing any SIGCOV, either from the keep votes or in the article, regarding this subject. I see no reason for a separation here, and the notability of the armor in the MCU is Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED from the notability of the armor elsewhere. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

another look at the sources, a merger isn't warranted. Darkknight2149 22:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale was as stated: "This was a legitimate split and even the OP admits that there are sources backing up the topic. [T]his nomination reads almost like it's fishing... As far as this one goes, I have no strong objection to it getting merged with another article, but there's not enough here to justify a deletion." Darkknight2149 06:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but all I see is "I have no strong objections to it getting merged but I don't like a deletion". It was not a legitimate split, since this topic has no stand-alone notability, per PROSESIZE, NOTINHERITED and OVERLAP. The practice of splitting bad and good content, creating one better and one bad article is not a good one. Bad content needs to be simply removed. Much of notability of the IM's armor is related to his MCU version, but it deesn't mean we need two articles on this. Simply put, MCU-related coverage made IM's armor notable - it wasn't before. If not for MCU stuff, we wouldn't need an article on this at all. Thanks to MCU, we can cover the topic of IM's armor. No need for a CFORK. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just took another look at the sources and most of them are specifically discussing the MCU iteration of the armor. What do you mean by "bad content" exactly? What part of SIGCOV does it fail? That's such a nebulous statement to make when the nomination already reads like it's fishing. The article goes into detail on the design, conception, and development of the film incarnation of the armor, so there's certainly more here than just fancruft and plot summary. You seem to be under the misconception that NOTINHERITED means "Splitting articles on topics that I don't personally consider important." I suggest you re-read the essays you just cited and take another look at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Let's not confuse snobbishness for notability guidelines. (Not to mention, the article split was discussed beforehand.) Darkknight2149 00:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:18, 4 July 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 Adam Warlock. Consensus for redirect. Any merge, if required, can be done later as history is preserved. (non-admin closure) Allfather (Benison) (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enclave (comics)

Enclave (comics) (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)

There are no reliable sources that meaningfully discuss this fictional organisation. In its current state, this article exclusively relies on primary sources, with the exception of an article that was published by a Valnet-owned publisher. Furthermore, it might not be a valid search term, as a massive number of false positives were found while trying to search for usable sources. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Well, to start, a Redirect to the list would not work, as the entry for this group there is simply a link back to this article - an actual merge would need to occur and as I said above, the lack of reliable sources in this article makes merging content inappropriate. And to answer your question, the fact that those lists are overstuffed with non-notable groups/characters/etc is something I largely oppose in AFDs. As I often say, not every character/group/etc needs to be included in these bloated lists, and they need to have some modicum of sources and notability to be included, in my opinion. This particular article is a case of the fictional group having so little coverage in reliable sources that including in the list would not be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find that compelling. In that case, I agree with your Adam Warlock suggestion, since that's at least verified in passing mentions e.g. in this book: When the mysterious Enclave engineers an artificial being who is supposed to outclass all of humanity, the man known only as “Him” kills his creator and immediately leaves earth to explore the universe. (footnote: In Thor 165 (June 1969). Eventually he becomes Adam Warlock, but that was the work of other writers and artists.) (pgs. 52-53). Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 20:48, 2 July 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 Hulk#Other identities. ✗plicit 00:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guilt Hulk

Guilt Hulk (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)

While there are sources that discuss this particular Hulk alter, none of them are the types of sources that can be used to prove notability. Aside from a single mention in a scholarly book, all but two of the potential sources were operated by Valnet. With regards to the article's current sources, all of them were published by Marvel. In any case, this character could easily be discussed within the Hulk's main article. ―Susmuffin Talk 22:36, 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 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 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.

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=1298353647"