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 Cyberdog958 (talk | contribs) at 03:56, 8 July 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosalie Octavius.). 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 redirect‎ to Spider-Man 2. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalie Octavius

Rosalie Octavius (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 character does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILMCHAR. Sources linked go to articles discussing Doctor Octopus (which is not the same subject as the the film character and fictional husband) and do not mention the subject. It looks like the character was created for the film adaptation and does not exist outside that one movie with minimal scene time. Nothing outside of blogs and Fandom can be found to establish notability. Redirecting to either Otto Octavius (film character) or Spider-Man 2 would be a good ATD. cyberdog958Talk 03:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Comics and animation. cyberdog958Talk 03:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Spider-Man 2 (and/or Otto Octavius (film character)). I did see only brief occurences in serious secondary sources, and sadly the Women in refrigerators commentary is unsourced. But a slight expansion at the target is a good WP:Alternative to deletion in my view. Daranios (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I would agree with merging, but since everything on the page is unsourced (because the sources used do not mention the subject), none of the prose should be used. Also, the page creator themselves state I've only really got speculation and pulling writing tropes out of my behind on the talk page of the article which makes me think that it is largely original research. cyberdog958Talk 13:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not realize that the second link also does not mention the character. I still think Spider-Man 2#Plot deserves a sentence on Rosie's role (although there's a half-sentence at Cast). Daranios (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Spider-Man 2 - It is somewhat rare for a minor character that only appears briefly in a single piece of fiction to have enough reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG, and I am seeing nothing in searches that would indicate that this one is one of those rare cases that do. While I do not oppose redirecting to the main film article as a reasonable search term, Merging anything would not be appropriate because the only two sources being used here, aside from having reliability issues, do not even mention the character as far as I can see. Rorshacma (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per Daranios. I don't see WP:SIGCOV either but this is partially covered at the main article about the fiction, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Otto Octavius (film character), since this character is unmentioned at Spider-Man 2. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:48, 9 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Hollow (British TV series)

Rocky Hollow (British TV series) (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)

Repeatedly declined and finally rejected at AfC. Draft:Rocky_Hollow_(TV_series) and Draft:Rocky Hollow. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rocky_Hollow.

Author was helped at AFCHD but seems to have no further good sources.

No indication of meeting WP:GNG. qcne (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As noted, no new sources were added to the article from the drafts despite feedback from previous users. Again, this seems to have been added out of desperation to still include it somewhere on the site despite a lack of sources. For all that, I can see no reason why it needs to be an article in its own right. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet GNG. The first newspaper clipping is a mention in a long list, the second is a TV guide, Curious British Telly is a blog so not RS, BBC is trivial coverage and Variety makes no mention of the show. S0091 (talk) 15:41, 17 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 delete‎. Goldsztajn (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Masasa Moyo

Masasa Moyo (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)

Actress who appears to have appeared in several roles, but they were all minor. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:18, 5 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 Pokémon (TV series). Further discussion about merging can occur at the target article talk page, and can be performed by retrieving content from the redirect's history. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon anime characters

List of Pokémon anime characters (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)

let's follow along with the list of pokémon characters' second afd discussion!!

this list currently has a few sprinkles of usable material drowning in a pile of fancruft. from some relatively quick looking, i've come across three main issues

  • with the exceptions of ash, brock, misty, and serena, the most notable characters seem to mostly be notable in the context of their appearances in the games (and we all know how that turned out), as opposed to the anime. i couldn't find too many sources on their anime appearances beyond what's already here
  • on that note, most of the sources i ended up finding, and the ones that ended up here, are primary, unusable, or not worth much for notability. this includes credits lists (tv tokyo, corocoro), voice actors' own sites, social media (facebook and twitter), and interviews (some on youtube, some being seemingly unreliable podcasts). thus, there's nearly actual sigcov to even warrant this list in the first place
from my count, exactly 31 of the 72 sources here would count for that, and about 11 of those are pretty insubstantial, leaving this entire list with 20 sources i think are actually reliable and useful
  • to make things a little worse, nearly all of the characters who do have enough material to work with already have articles of their own, so what little info they have here that isn't there yet could just be merged into their articles or the specific series they appear in
for debates on which series this info would need to be put in for characters who don't have their own articles... debut generation/series works unless talking about them in other series' contexts, i'd say
  • i don't even believe this can really fulfill wp:listn, as the only real demonstrated notability anyone has here is isolated or based on their interactions with ash and brock (and somehow no one else), which makes the roster itself not particularly notable

considering that entire sections of this list have nothing but a single list of credits as a source (rising volt tackler gamign), and other sections aren't even lucky enough for that (gym leaders and antagonists other than team rocket), i recommend either deleting or, if any info is deemed worth keeping, merging and redirecting it to pokémon (tv series) for attribution, as if it was just "trimmed", i'm not entirely sure the amount of characters it mentions with more than a name would exceed 5

what do you mean those weren't three issues? consarn (grave) (obituary) 18:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect per nom. Most of the info on the bulk of these recurring characters is discussed at the individual season articles already, with many only being relevant to particular seasons. The main recurring characters can have something added at Pokémon (TV series), which can be done editorially, but currently there's nothing to really "merge" sourcing wise for most of them. Personally I'm leaning redirect per to that article per Wikipedia:AtD, and the fact it will allow for easier merging of content should editors want to do so editorially, but I am unopposed to deletion if it means coming to a quicker consensus. Whatever works best. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: from some closer examination, i'd like to retract my statement on there being 31 sources that would be usable for this list and 20 that would be useful. from careful-ish analysis, i'd drop the amount of sources i believe would be useful for determining the notability of the cast in general to a grand total of... 7. of which only two aren't primarily about ash, brock, or misty, and even then, they're about ash and team rocket's replacements. so really, if we're being strict, i think the cast itself would actually have nothing to work with beyond how they work from ash's perspective, which is a massive disappointment consarn (grave) (obituary) 15:57, 10 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.

List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations

List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations (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)

Clear WP:NLIST failure - being a team or organization in a Marvel comic is so incredibly common that this is not a unique aspect, nor does the article demonstrate sources that discuss Marvel teams and organizations as a whole. Overall, this is a list more fitting for the Marvel Database wiki and should not be used as a free "dumping ground" for otherwise non-notable teams. Even putting them together, they remain non-notable and only relevant to comic-book superfans. The MCU list article also seems to have the same problem, but due to WP:TRAINWRECK concerns, I am nominating this first. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To me there seem to be a lot of problems with the nomination rationale with regard to WP:SKCRIT no 3. Being common is to my knowledge not a reason for deletion. We do have things like Lists of companies or Lists of animals, which are arguably much more common than the organizations here. We do have a lot of blue links, so this most likely is a list useful for navigation in accordance with WP:LISTPURP-NAV and WP:CLN. Such lists may even be kept without fulfilling WP:LISTN, depending on consensus. "dumping ground" and "more fitting for the Marvel Database wiki" might be the case if the goal were to collect all teams and organizations. On the other hand, it is totally policy-based to included entities which are not notable enough for a stand-alone article but still do have some coverage or encyclopedic purpose based on editors' disgression and consensus, as specified in WP:ATD-M. "nor does the article demonstrate sources that discuss Marvel teams and organizations as a whole" I believe is correct, but that's again no grounds for deletion according to WP:ARTN, i.e. current article content is not the decisive factor. So before getting into the abovementioned consideration based on the navigation purpose, I would like to know the result of the required WP:BEFORE search on secondary sources not yet in the article. And from the experience that comics have been increasingly analyzed in academia I'd ask to include the Google Scholar search in this consideration. Daranios (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That falls under WP:SOURCESEARCH, or maybe just WP:ADHOMINEM, as you are implying the sources exist and a WP:BEFORE was not performed, without actually stating where they are. You could just actually find the sources before casting aspersions. I certainly don't think all or even most of these teams are notable even as part of a list, and they are largely sourced to primary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: I apologize, I did not mean to be WP:ADHOMINEM! I don't know yet if there are sources. But as far as I can see you have only commented on sources in the article. As in any deletion discussion involving notability concerns it would really be helpful to get some elaboration on the results of the WP:BEFORE search of the nominator, as a starting point for their own searches of any participant in the discussion. Lack of such elaboration in my view in turn gets into WP:JUSTNOTABLE territory. Daranios (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the importance of redirects pointing here, rather than being a WP:POPULARPAGE argument (which is based on view statistics, not directly involved with redirects), is that a) there was consensus at several other discussions that a redirect here is the way to go, which should count for something with regard to the existence of this list and b) that this list does fulfill one of the basic functions of lists at Wikipedia as outlined in WP:CSC, 2., (as well as WP:ATD-M) and thus is very much in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. Daranios (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep according to WP:SKCRIT no 3.: As discussed above I don't see a policy-based rationale for deletion in the nomination, except for the pure statement "Clear WP:NLIST failure". As this is not at all obvious to me, I believe this falls under WP:JUSTNOTABLE. On the other hand this list fulfills a navigational purpose for encyclopedic content on this topic elsewhere on Wikipedia, as well as being a place for encyclopedic content on the topic which does not lend itself to stand-alone articles, as outlined in WP:ATD-M. It is also a well-warranted WP:SPLIT from Marvel Universe, within which teams and organizations play a vital role, as was also acknowledged in the nomination. Daranios (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is "not obvious to you", it does not make it not a policy-based reason, just a policy-based reason you personally think is wrong. Well, not unless you were Galactus and controlled reality. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So why not just fix the WP:JUSTNOTABLE problem in the nomination as explained in that essay on the deletion policy, as I've requested earlier? Simply claiming something does not make it a reality either (except for Galactus who just makes it so of course...). Daranios (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, to answer more directly, yes, the nomination contains a reference to a policy. But it does not contain a rationale why this should apply here which is intelligible to me. And if it is not clear to me, then most likely "Clear failure", i.e. not needing further explanation, is not the case. Daranios (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with stipulations. Per my BEFORE I decided to carry out since the nom did not specify if they did one, I found one strong hit from a PHD professor, and another good one on the concept of female superhero teams (Requires Springer access). At a glance there seemed to be other hits of varying sizes and scope, but a lot of it was focused on the FF, Avengers, or X-Men. I'd say there's enough for a "teams" list, but my main issue lies in the other half.
I have to agree that the list is definitely COATRACK-esque. What defines a "team" or an "organization" that they should be discussed together? Something like Advanced Idea Mechanics or S.H.I.E.L.D. are organizations, but they are not "teams" like the sources I've seen seem to define the Avengers or FF, and don't seem to have any similarities beyond having multiple people in one place. I additionally found no strong SIGCOV hits for "organizations" as a subject, barring specific organizations like Hydra or SHIELD which have individual analysis.
I feel this list needs to be ironed down to just "teams", but I do not feel like this list needs to be deleted and has a valid case for staying. I wouldn't be opposed to a Wikipedia:TNT to make this focus only on the individual "teams", removing any of these organizations since they don't really have connections. I'd advise the nom to take a look through the individual groups and try cleaning those up though, since I doubt many of them are notable, and it would help this list since it would determine what needs to be mentioned here and what could be reasonably discussed in another article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: Your first source discusses superhero teams in comparison/contrast with supervillain organizations on p. 50, but I can only see a snippet so don't know the extent. So there is some connection made. Additionally, our category system currently treats Category:Marvel Comics teams as a subset of Category:Marvel Comics organizations. But let's assume for a moment that "Marvel Comics teams" is a notable topic and "Marvel Comics organizations" is not. We still have a number of stand-alone articles on Marvel Comics organizations, so a listing of them at least for navigational purposes makes sense (WP:CLN). According to WP:WHYN/WP:FAILN/WP:ATD-M this should then be a sub-section of a parent list. Topic-wise that could be Features of the Marvel Universe#Organizations, but it could just as well be a subsection of List of Marvel Comics teams as a closely related subject (again compare the example at WP:ATD-M). All of that however, as I we seem to agree, is an editorial decision and therefore not relevant to the deletion of this list. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this should likely be discussed is moreso my point, whether here or at the talk page, whatever works best for editors. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources discussion organizations within the MCU: "Time to Work for a Living: The Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Organized Superhero.", "Beyond the Law: What is so “Super” About Superheroes and Supervillains?". So I guess there is some argument to make for having a stand-alone Cinematic Universe list. More important is probably the question, if we look at it from a navigational point of view for a moment: Do these two lists refer more to different articles or the same ones? Daranios (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if the teams have significant overlap and are the same thing except in different mediums, a merge might be worthwhile since then both halves can be discussed together as one concrete whole, but I would suggest that after a thorough cleanup is done to see what content is actually "notable" and both lists are ironed and cleaned up to include the substantial content (I.e, reception/analysis, any dev info available, etc) Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I agree that the MCU content needs to be sorted through, but that is best to discuss first at WT:MCU before proceeding with any AfDs to determine a consensus for how to handle those, but that is aside from this AfD. As for this list, I think we may need to WP:TNT it. Either this list is vastly reworked or it is merged into Features of the Marvel Universe#Organizations, which already has some overlapping entries. Willfully refusing to update many redirects should not be an excuse to not improve an article. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 15:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trailblazer101: I see a lot of room for improvement, but hardly a reason for WP:TNT. Again looking at it from a navigational point of view: There are a number of relevant entities under Category:Marvel Comics organizations, and a lot of blue links here. Assuming that at least a relevant percentage of these are what they are supposed to be (links to articles or redirects to where the topic is treated within another article), there is a lot which currently is useful, while WP:TNT says, start over if there's nothing useful except the title. So to improve it I would say the order should be to more clearly formulate inclusion criterea, then comb through the list according to these, see what we have then. If what remains is comparatively small (which I don't expect), then one can think about a merge to Features of the Marvel Universe#Organizations. Thinking about it now, when the list is a whopping 220 kB and the suggested target is 127 kB seems not helpful to me. Daranios (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think operating by TNT in spirit but not totally would be an ideal solution, as in the contents of this list are trimmed down significantly to the bare essentials. That could make a potential merge easier and be able to better assess what is actually notable between what is trivial or not that important. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 18:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but merging should not be an end in itself. If removing entries not fitting for an encyclopedia article leads to a short list, then that's all nice and good. But if not, then it should stay separate. And the aim should not be "as short as possible", but to include what makes sense to give "access to the sum of all human knowledge" without becoming WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And then comes my ususal view of things: Include blue-linked entries for navigation, including a reasonable summary description; and include entries which are non-notable but on which something can be said in the encyclopedic context. This can mean entries where secondary sources have something to say about them, but not to the extent that warrants a stand-alone article. Daranios (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While such issues can be brought in task force discussion, it's important to remember that such a forum is heavily biased towards inclusionism for its topic, as it is populated by broadly understood fans of the topic. (This is also a problem that plagues most merge and talk page discussions; and sure, you could make argument in reverse for AfD and like... sigh). Anyway, MCU existence has generated plenty of good sources, but often they tend to estabilish notability of the primary concept, with no need for a MCU-only fork (which generally only adds some info on casting and movie/TV prop creation; even readers are not served by the forking usually - for all but the few key characters/concepts, a MCU section in the main article for whatever topic we are talking about would suffice). Just look at the list nominated here and the MCU equivalent - there's a ton of overlap. I'd suggest merging them - there's no good reason for the split. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Care to count the current percentages of the two lists linking to Marvel Comics themed and MCU-specific articles, respectively? Daranios (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point? Feel free to count and tell us why it matters, I am honestly curious. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, but I don't have the time and energy currently (among other things there are a lot of deletion discussions going on...). The point I've already described above, but to rephrase: How many articles and relevant blue links are there on teams and organizations specific to the MCU as opposed to the comics? Kind of decisive for the question of a separate MCU list is warranted or not with regard to WP:LISTPURP-NAV. Daranios (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 Marvel Comics teams and organizations and merge encyclopedic content. If that article is deleted at AfD, other targets have been proposed. As I see it there's consensus against a standalone and also consensus to keep some of the content, possibly at multiple locations. The target of the redirect is less critical. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Corps

Nova Corps (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)

Niche fictional organization from Marvel universe. Article fails WP:GNG and is just a plot summary and list of appearances; no reception or analysis found, nothing useful in my BEFORE. WP:ATD-R suggests we can pipe this to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations, maybe merge the lead there? (It's unreferenced, unfortunately) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nova (Richard Rider), who seems to be the primary Nova character. Given the bulk of Nova's notability is due to this character, and the coverage for the Corps is non-existent, it's likely better to redirect here, where the Corps are very relevant as part of the Nova character's backstory. Would also be safer on the chance the teams and organizations list is redirected or deleted via the ongoing Afd. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because a number of editors are recommending a Merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations and this article has been brought to AFD. Was there a second possible merge target article if this one gets deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: If it should come to that, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe groups has been suggested as an alternative target once, Nova (Richard Rider) twice. Daranios (talk) 10:56, 11 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 Thor (Marvel Comics). ✗plicit 11:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mjolnir (comics)

Mjolnir (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)

The article fails to establish the topic's notability - it's just a long plot summary, with some catalogue info thrown in (publication history, appearances in media). No analysis, reception, etc. My BEFORE failed to find anything that goes beyond plot summary. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest this to be redirected to Thor (Marvel Comics). We should also take a look at Mjolnir and Stormbreaker, which is the same but has some MCU-trivia on top. (If anyone is curious, Stormbreaker (comics) never even had an article, it was always just a redirect). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thor per others. No notability individually, but there is a highly associated topic we can send this to. I'd also agree to getting rid of Mjolnir and Stormbreaker as well, since that article is sustained entirely by info basically already and/or better covered by either Thor or Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe). Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999 Indeed. Can you AfD it? I am on holidays and a bit busy as a result... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus I think it'd be wiser to wait for this AfD's culmination, since this article would be the logical AtD for the Stormbreaker article. Discussion would probably flow better once the final outcome of Mjolnir's AfD is determined, whether it be keep, redirect, or what have you. I can definitely handle it once this is done though. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:16, 5 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 delete‎. tardis.wiki is not a Wikimedia project, so there's no option to "transwiki" to it while preserving attribution/copyright. Owen× ☎ 21:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dalek comic strips, illustrated annuals and graphic novels

Dalek comic strips, illustrated annuals and graphic novels (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)

A list of appearances by Daleks in a specific media type. Having researched this topic extensively, there is no individual coverage of the Daleks in this type of media, and any coverage of the Daleks in it is purely plot summary information. As it stands this list is an WP:INSIDISCRIMINATE failure. I'd suggest a redirect as an AtD to Dalek. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:48, 10 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 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.

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=1299392734"