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

List of adult animated feature films nominated for Academy Awards

List of adult animated feature films nominated for Academy Awards (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 to be an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. None of the cited sources, nor any others I could find after a quick search, discuss "adult animated feature films nominated for Academy Awards" as a group. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Awards, and Lists. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. From my cursory look, it also seems like the entries on the list were added purely based on what their MPA rating is without any actual sources to support, which would be WP:OR. Weirdguyz (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'll go ahead and ask the question: is there any merit in having an article that lists out the films that are rated PG-13 and above? They're not exactly uncommon, but it is a bit unusual for them to get nominations since the vast, vast majority are G or PG rated. Offhand there seems to be some mild coverage towards the topic. I haven't super dug in, but there does seem to be at least some mild hubbub over the award leaning towards family friendly fare. I just don't know if it's necessarily enough to justify a spinoff article. I'm not exactly arguing for a keep here, just asking if there is any merit in somewhat changing the focus away from the name "adult animated film" and maybe to something rating specific. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd think something of this sort could be mentioned at List of animated feature films nominated for Academy Awards, but I don't see justification for a separate page for those rated PG-13 and above. Or Academy Award for Best Animated Feature has some good prose sections and could include some discussion including any sources covering the topic. But the fact that some song, score, or international film nominations were adult animation isn't as relevant. Reywas92Talk 14:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That could be good - I know that the list article already has a section on R rated films. The article specifies that it excludes ones nominated for BAF, but I can see why it's added since there have only been two R-rated films that have been nominated. Since the page specifically excludes BAF nominations other than those two, I don't know if we could really include any PG-13 films unless they were nominated for other awards. The main article does have some mention about the award perpetuating the idea that animation is for kids, but doesn't mention ratings - maybe there could be a brief mention there about film ratings and/or count of how many films have been nominated in each rating? I know that WP:ITSINTERESTING isn't a rationale to include something on Wikipedia, but it does kind of feel like something that could merit some light mention somewhere. This also made me question something else, but it's not really related to this so I'll bring that up at WP:FILM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Maximum Ride characters

List of Maximum Ride 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)

Fails WP:NLIST. No references to reliable secondary sources. The 1 reference the article has currently is a primary source to a list of books. Mika1h (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reasons for deletion can be addressed with edits to remove unsourced information for-depth analysis while retaining character descriptions, etc. cited from the novels themselves. The series features a wide array of characters organized into multiple groups and I think it makes sense to keep as its own article as opposed to merging into the Characters section of the main article. Eulersidentity (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly valid split-out article, too large to fit in the main article. The series is now 11 novels, with manga and comic book adaptations, and a film. Best to just have all the characters in one place, than have the same information filling up all these different articles. Dream Focus 14:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't seem like sources discuss the characters as a group, which is needed per Wikipedia:LISTN. Many of these characters can be covered at Maximum Ride, or at individual books, depending on the status of each character as recurring or not. Unless some good coverage of the characters as a whole can be found, this list firmly does not meet the Wikipedia:GNG. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pokelego999. I don't see the sources to support an encyclopedia article, per WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. I would accept a selective merge as a compromise. The main article is only 20k, and a slight expansion of the character list wouldn't tip the scales. (Nor would a complete merge, but I'd advise against it.) Shooterwalker (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Maximum Ride#Characters. It's always the question if a collection of fiction can be notable without the characters. In a non-exhaustive search, a number of the news sources I've seen do comment on the characters as a group, but rather briefly. The more interesting-looking sources from the Google Scholar search I cannot access, unfortunately. So considering the volume of commentary currently available to me, I am fine with a merge. I think, however, that this is strongly preferable to deletion or a pure redirect. Just compare as an example that the Maximum Ride article suddenly comments on Total's character, who appears out of nowhere, no other mention. So a merge would make this more well-rounded. If someone has access to more sources I'd be happy to hear about them. Daranios (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Daranios said it best. Some series may not have enough sources to build a good character article. But a short character list in the main article would preserve some of the content. It is preferable to deleting. Archrogue (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lola & Virginia

Lola & Virginia (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)

Fails GNG. I tried looking up several variations of Lola & Virginia (Lola and Virginia, Lola y Virginia, Lola e Virginia, Lola eta Virginia) and could only find fan sites and other sources that don't confer reliability. Perhaps someone familiar with Basque- and Spanish-language sources can take a look? 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 10:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe series aired on Disney Channel Spain and had a full season, the article lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Much of the content is plot-heavy and unsourced, and the notability tag has been present for some time without resolution. Under WP:GNG and WP:TV, the show does not appear to meet the threshold for lasting encyclopedic relevance. Unless stronger sourcing is provided.--Unclethepoter (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Your opinion will not be weighted if you don't comment on those even summarily. Geschichte (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I'll let the closing admin close this as keep unless some issues are found with that journal article @Geschichte mentioned. Good find, I would have never expected to find sources for this in academia. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:40, 21 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 Rohit Shetty's Cop Universe#Animated series. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Little Singham

Little Singham (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)

Lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and relies mainly on promotional material. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and appears promotional in tone. Media Mender 📬✍🏻 🧪 13:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's on Netflix, which is pretty notable by itself. Though it doesn't meet WP:GNG for the english world, in a sense it is pretty notable to many viewers who watch it, not to mention it's wide range of Franchise movies. Maybe revamp it? 2601:600:8D82:6200:7527:8645:11B8:628E (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being on Netflix doesn't establish notability per WP:GNG. The series lacks significant independent coverage. It's also not part of the main Singham film franchise, only loosely inspired. Without strong sources, it doesn't meet inclusion criteria. Media Mender 📬✍🏻 🧪 13:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's actually really notable across the diaspora and india itself. Though it is not notable per interpretations of WP:GNG that you give, this creates a slippery slope. What non-western media pieces do not fit a description on the English Wikipedia? There are many sources, and it would be better to redirect or revamp the page, I don't see reasons to delete the page. The views on this page are notable enough to warrant at least a redirect. The Copverse page already has a section related to the Little Singham, which could be expanded on or kept but certainly not removed. 2601:600:8D82:6200:5CE7:9E1:38B:B9F5 (talk) 21:30, 15 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.

Make New Friends but Keep Discord

Make New Friends but Keep Discord (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)

Notability is not demonstrated. Ponyville Confidential does not appear to go into depth on the episode (judging from the preview triangulation I was able to do with Google Books), Unleash the Fanboy does not appear to be a reliable site or to indicate notability; it's a defunct "WOW!POP!WTF!"-type blog. WhatCulture is definitely not reliable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unleash the Fanboy had an editorial board, so it was not just a blog. I'm not sure what there is to gain from deleting an article for an episode of a notable show. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I searched their website for evidence of an editorial board and couldn't find anything; could you kindly link to that? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is evidence of a staff list here from the Wayback machine from 2013: [6], though that is the latest the web archive will go. From looking at other articles from Unleash the Fanboy at the time, there is evidence of an expanded staff list by 2015 (which is when the episode aired) but the Wayback machine did not capture it. I also expanded Connelly's coverage from her book.
    As for WhatCulture, I understand that it is listed as "generally unreliable" under WP:WHATCULTURE, as the concern is that contributors "do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications" and editors note a poor record of fact checking, so that the facts written in an article is unverifiable. But this is an episode of a children's television show we're talking about. Every single statement in the review is verifiable because anyone can watch the episode and confirm what the author is saying. If the subject of the article was a living person then per WP:BLP of course we shouldn't use a generally unreliable source, but I don't agree with not being able to use a single article from a source because it was found to be generally unreliable, especially when the subject in question is not contentious at all. If a source is generally unreliable, why even use the word generally and why not just call it unreliable in that case? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the WhatCulture piece contains falsehoods is not in question; it’s just a poor source that cannot be used to establish the notability of a topic. A press release for the episode would have the same problem. As for Unleash the Fanboy, that staff list does not inspire any confidence in the weight of the website in establishing topic notability—it seems to just be some buddies who put a website together. They’re not journalists. I believe that if a TV episode received no more than a few sentences in a book, plus two reviews in poor sources, and no coverage more convincing than that, then it’s not notable. I understand we disagree; others will weigh in. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many notable subjects that did not receive much media coverage (Example? Some mathematicians with many widely cited papers don't meet GNG). They are not notable by WP:GNG, but by just good sense they are notable (and this show is very notable). Everything here is true, so why delete it? It's a clear case of WP:IGNORE. The rules were not made to delete articles like this one. MathKeduor7 (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give as example an article I've created: Treatise on Radioactivity. Clearly notable, but doesn't meet GNG. MathKeduor7 (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be arguing that no subject should be deleted on the grounds of non-notability—or that notability guidelines are irrelevant to subject notability. You can argue that at Wikipedia Talk:Notability, but AfD discussions refer to the notability policy.
That mathematicians have their own SNG (WP:ACADEMIC) does not imply that episodes of My Little Pony don’t need to meet any notability guideline to be considered notable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. I am arguing specifically for these types of articles. MathKeduor7 (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote what by best friend said: "Rules are not created ex nihilo, "arbitrarily" (at least they shouldn't be). They are created to impartially regulate conduct in similar situations, based on known past cases and attempting to anticipate possible future cases. As new cases become known that represent exceptions to the rule and should be analyzed differently, the rule needs to be constantly refined to take these situations into account and remain true to its original purpose, rather than becoming an instrument of tyranny and oppression." MathKeduor7 (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read about Martin Luther King Jr. and unfair rules. MathKeduor7 (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need criteria similar to WP:BKCRIT for notable show episodes other than GNG, until then this should be speedy keep (maybe) I think. MathKeduor7 (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic season 5#ep98. I like to think I'm more lenient when it comes to keeping episode articles – typically, I look for just two good sources about the specific episode. Unfortunately, I don't see that. Using the reference numbers from this link:
    • Ref 1 is a licensed guidebook, so it's not independent coverage.
    • Ref 2 is routine coverage (most primetime shows get daily Nielsen ratings), so it's not significant.
    • Refs 3-5 are hard to verify, but from a Google Books search, it appears that all mentions are brief and trivial. (Searching "Make New Friends but Keep Discord" returns exactly 3 hits corresponding to the 3 references here. The book has been scoured for any mention of the episode to include, even when the context is about something else, such as ref 5 detailing a character instead of this episode. That's not how significant coverage works.)
    • Ref 6 is from a blog that has a giant "Write for Us" button at the top; to me, it's clearly a fan site, not a professional, reliable source. The generic about us page and the social-media–like staff pages support this (I'm skeptical of any site that gives its editors achievement badges).
    • Ref 7 is more churnalism; like with 6, if anyone can write for them (which is why it's considered unreliable), it's more of a fan site than anything.
I'm not seeing any good sources for this article. There is a clear redirect target, so deletion is a step too far, but there's no good reason to keep this. And for those who think TV episodes should have their own notability guideline, you should know that many WP:TV members have pushed for a stricter guideline here – so sticking to GNG is probably a better route. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good redirect target. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:50, 16 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) 22:34, 16 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 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.

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 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.

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=1300845296"