Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Comics and animation. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Comics and animation|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Comics and animation. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation/archive

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

Cerebro

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Outside a brief 'Concept and creation' section, there is nothing (no reception/analysis sections) in the article to suggest this meets WP:GNG (with the usual WP:ATD-R/WP:ATD-M consideration of Features of the Marvel Universe. My BEFORE yields little: there is a master thesis at [1] that has some SIGCOV, but MT is not a sufficient source to establish GNG _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 18 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are literally more than a dozen VALNET (CBR, ScreenRant) articles substantially about Cerebro spanning several years; even if we only consider each a fraction of a reliable source--and they're really more like comic book issue reviews, for the most part--that's still at least one source towards the GNG. Cerebro has its own Lego set. And Cerebro does get namedropped without further explanation by EW (actually, multiple times if you search the EW archives). Throw in print references like Hall, R. A. (2021). Robots in Popular Culture: Androids and Cyborgs in the American Imagination. United Kingdom: ABC-CLIO. and Dudenhoeffer, L. (2017). Anatomy of the Superhero Film. Germany: Springer International Publishing. and we've got a clear pass. Jclemens (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Meehan, P. (2009). Cinema of the Psychic Realm: A Critical Survey. Ukraine: McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers. has an X2 plot summary coverage of Cerebro as well. Jclemens (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Valnet sources do not provide notability at all; their presence is a null point in proving notability. A Lego set is not an indication of notability given that is merchandising; a company can market a non-notable character as much as it likes, but if the coverage from third party sources isn't there, it's moot. Both EW and the McFarland sources are plot summary, the Springer source is a trivial mention. The only actual coverage we have in here that isn't plot summary is a single sentence in the Robots in Pop Culture source. Your sources are clearly failing Wikipedia:NOTPLOT and Wikipedia:SIGCOV's definition of trivial sources, with not a single one beating either definition. Even if you argue Robots in Pop Culture counts, that's one source, and given how little else got turned up, I doubt there's more, and one source does not make an article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) WP:VALNET is 1) a video game notability discussion, not specific to cinema or comics, and 2) doesn't even say that about video games. If you look, it's listed as "situational", not deprecated, invalid, unreliable, or any such.

2) NOTPLOT is about how we write about things. A secondary source that is 100% plot summary is not thereby unusable, but rather is necessarily transformative.

3) The Robots in Popular Culture reference is not a single sentence. Rather, it's a two-page article on Cerebro/Cerebra spanning pages 103-104. Your mischaracterization is hard to square with reality. What single sentence did you find instead of the actual entry on Cerebro?
4) The fact that a fictional element has been rendered into a concrete form for sale absolutely constitutes "real world" impact. My take on this, User:Jclemens/FICT, has been consistent on this for well over a decade. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note Wikipedia:FILM also tends to have a similar, if stricter view on Valnet. Also, not sure what you mean by WP:VALNET not mentioning this when it outright states: "In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability due to concerns over their content farming. "

NOTPLOT still applies when all of the sources you've grabbed are plot summaries. What article are we going to have that wouldn't just be all plot summary if all the sources have is plot summary?

The Robots in Pop Culture source is all plot summary, barring the one sentence at the end. There's very little actually significant in terms of its coverage.

Your opinion is not a policy on how merchandise should be treated in regards to notability. Even in just past discussions, merchandise has repeatedly not been considered viable for demonstrating notability.

Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) You're treating as guideline an essay, and ignoring its nuance. For example, regarding ScreenRant, it notes: Considered "marginally reliable" per 2021 RfC on WP:RSP. May be inappropriate to cite for controversial statements in BLP pages, but source is deemed reliable enough for other uses. Sometimes spelled as "Screenrant". That's not a never.

2) I shouldn't have to educate you on how to create an article, but here goes. If plot summaries in independent RS'es establish notability, then other sources--such as Valnet--can be used to flesh out appropriate details, per WP:NNC and thus easily making an article by, for example, copying tidbits from reviews that don't constitute non-trivial coverage. Did you really not understand this be the case before? I'm genuinely curious.

3) It's an article that takes up two pages in a dead-tree book that's independent of the franchise. For you to double down on characterizing it as a single sentence is inappropriate and smacks of motivated reasoning, and calls into question all your characterizations of sourced. Are you so interested in "winning" that you're willing to downplay sourcing? Explain to me how that's not BATTLEGROUND?

4) Never said it was. I said it's how it should be. The fact that Wikipedia defines notability in a picayune manner that entirely ignores things like, oh, major corporations investing money trying to sell a product based on a fictional element continues to be wrong, and I continue to bring it up whenever relevant. You're welcome to disagree, of course. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Situational means we can and should review best articles, case by case. Can you link here all VALNET or other articles you consider to be helpful for establishing notability? I'd be happy to review them. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we'll have to agree to disagree on a few of these points, but I will clarify that I'm not trying to "win", at least in the way you're phrasing it. I'd appreciate not being accused of BATTLEGROUNDing just because I disagree on your interpretation of the guidelines. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Professor X, where Cerebro is mentioned substantially in relation to his character, and thus seems to be a valid AtD. Sources don't seem to exist discussing this aspect in depth by itself. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claims of @Jclemens: or start a section for items at Features of the Marvel Universe and merge it there as I can't find any other section there that would take its information. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Lego Cerebro is reported in secondary sources like this. Another web article on the topic is here. Daranios (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quinjet

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this one has a tiny reception section, except for [2] it's all listicles and mentions in passing, and even the linked Mary Sue article is poor - it talks mostly about plans for a theme park attraction, and its discussion of the item in question is rathers superficial (effectively, all useful content is quoted in our article - one sentence or so, with the claim that this is iconic/etc because of a wild guess proposed by the writer...). Meh. My BEFORE failed to find anything better. As such, I fear this fails WP:GNG, being just a barely-above-stub list of appearances and plot summary, plus an inadequate reception section. Per WP:ATD-M, I suggest this is merged to Features of the Marvel Universe or perhaps Avengers (comics). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 17 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, Comics and animation, and Transportation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. There aren't more than WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs of this topic in the resources, failing WP:GNG. The WP:SIGCOV is about Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Vehicles, which is an acceptable WP:ATD target. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Features list per nom, since that seems to be the best place to mention this subject at present. Little to no coverage for the Jet specifically. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would Keep, but that's just me. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperbolick Can you provide a rationale? WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:ILIKEIT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
more just a gut instinct with this showing up a lot in universe. Not losing sleep over it. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Life Model Decoy

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet again, no reception/analysis - this is just plot summary and list of apperances. The old AfD from 2013 or so claimed "sources exist", but did not mention which ones contain SIGCOV that goes beyong plot summary, and my BEFORE failed to locate anything (I had trouble accessing some sources cited, but for example the mention in What is American? book seems to be to be pure plot summary and SIGCOV-failing; in either case, the article, as I said, has no analysis/reception of any sort). Per WP:ATD-R, this can be redirected to Features of the Marvel Universe. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 17 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, Comics and animation, and Technology. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reliable sources don't provide enough information to pass WP:NOT and WP:GNG. Other articles already cover how this factors into the story with proper real-world context, and I would consent to an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to S.H.I.E.L.D. BOZ (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have the results of the Google Scholar search been considered? Already the first hit, Re-Entering the Dollhouse: Essays on the Joss Whedon Series, has a longish treatment of the life model decoy character A.I.D.A. Is this character treated elsewhere on Wikipedia or is it not rather within the scope of this one? Can anyone access "Iron Man's Heart? Daranios (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like the Agents of Shield version of the character that is being discussed in that source is included on the character list for the show - List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters#Aida "Ophelia" / Madame_Hydra. The comic version the character was based on is also included on one of the Marvel character lists - List of Marvel Comics characters: A#AIDA. Rorshacma (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mutants, Androids, and Aliens has commentary on Life Model Decoys, using individual characters as examples, and drawing conclusions about robots and androids more generally, but also pronouncing that disctincions matter and that the Life Model Decoy has a very specific niche as a sentient android (at least in this incarnation). So "no recpetion/analysis" falls short. (Drat, I did not actually want to know all those revelations on shows I may still watch.) What is American? has at least brief commentary on the life model decoy from a specific story as a "product of transformative experiments undertaken by a secret American government", etc. Unnützes Wissen für Marvel-Nerds suggests that Life Model Decoys function can be to retro-actively distance a character from behaviour in storylines. Daranios (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joss Whedon Versus the Corporation, p. 74, 125, also discusses how the LMD story element represents technological dangers; while drawing general conclusion (and comparisons with other media), this is again based on the character AIDA. In contrast, "Iron Man : entre confusion identitaire et addiction à la technologie" has similar conclusions but is based on an unrelated LMD. Daranios (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I count at least six secondary sources in the article that make it notable. The article contains much information specific to its topic that would be too unwieldly if it were merged into the SHIELD article. Nightscream (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream Which of these sources go beyond plot summary and meet WP:SIGCOV? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not done a deep dive into the sources. Nightscream (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which means your argument can be summarized as WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on the content of sources notwithstanding, WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES would mean that no such sources have been named. That is not the case here, as the secondary sources in question are currently listed in the references of the article. So that essay does not apply to the situation here. Daranios (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to S.H.I.E.L.D.. Daranios's sources have some fantastic coverage, but they feel more fitting for an AIDA article than a Life Model Decoy one, as they're largely all in relation to how it affects that particular character instead of being about the concept as a whole. I wouldn't be opposed to an AIDA article at some point based on the extent of this coverage, but for the terms of this AfD and the coverage of specifically Life Model Decoys, I'd say it's likely not enough for notability. SHIELD seems to be the most valid AtD at present, so I'd recommend a redirect there to preserve the info in case of a future AIDA article or something similar. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: What is American? is about a very different LMD than AIDA. Mutants, Androids, and Aliens is talking more about what the concept LMD brings with it in general and LMD Melinda May than AIDA, although I think all in the same medium. Daranios (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nightscream's assertion about the sources making it notable. BOZ (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assertion...? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some secondary sources appear in the article, some with plot summary, others with limited commentary. E.g. the Hollywood Reporter article goes through LMDs history and gives their characterization and narrative function. I have listed a number of more in-depth sources above. There is most analysis in relation with one specific character, AIDA, but the sources draw conclusions on LMDs more general. And there is also commentary on other LMDs. So yes, some of that could be fit into AIDA, but I think it is more benefical to have everything in one place, giving this context from various LMD characters. WP:NOTPAPER means that some duplication between here and AIDA would not be a problem. All that said, I think a split and merge to AIDA and S.H.I.E.L.D. (although that yet lacks a technology section), or maybe to Features of the Marvel Universe#Objects (advantage: some LMDs are only very indirectly related to S.H.I.E.L.D.) is possible. I just think there being enough material for a full article and the alternative meaning splitting the material would be an inferior solution. Daranios (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims that were made by @Nightscream:, @BOZ:, and @Daranios:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doombot

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just the usual plot summary and list of appearances - no evidence of how this meets WP:GNG. Per WP:ATD-R and what I judge to be weak consensus on the talk page, I suggest redirecting this to Doctor_Doom#Inventions (I don't see what is useful here for merging, but no prejudice to it if someone thinks something here is worth preserving). PS. Keep arguments from the prior AfD seem to cite illustrated, not-independent and plot-summary-only comic book "encyclopedias", little better (or IMHO strictly worse, outside being pretty paper weights) from fan pages like fandom/wikia. PS. My BEFORE failed to locate anything substantial. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 17 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, Comics and animation, and Technology. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. This article needs reliable independent information to meet WP:GNG and WP:NOT. This object is already summarized at Doctor Doom, where it can be covered in-context and proportional to its reception (or lack thereof). Shooterwalker (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor Doom per nom. Clear GNG failure, but there's also a very clear target where this is discussed in adequate detail. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor Doom#Inventions - I am not seeing anything either in the article or upon searches that demonstrates that the concept of Doombots has had significant coverage separate from general coverage of their creator, so per WP:NOPAGE should be covered on the main Dr. Doom article. And since it already is covered there, a redirect to that section would be an appropriate WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the Inventions section of Doctor Doom. Though the Doombot that was in Avengers A.I. was a main character and has since been classified as Doombot C53. If we have to merge that Doombot to List of Marvel Comics characters: D, we can. As for the last time this was up for discussion, there were some keeps from @Andrew Davidson:, @BOZ:, and @ThePlatypusofDoom: who had their reasons there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Moth

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So I just want to preface this with the fact that I love Killer Moth, so I was really hoping to find some coverage in here for an article, but unfortunately this guy... doesn't have much. The article is mostly a plot summary, with the sources only being plot summary or some minor dev info pieces. In terms of Reception, all I found was a really good WP:SIGCOV hit here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Batman_s_Villains_and_Villainesses/hkrYEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Killer+Moth%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA98&printsec=frontcover. Beyond that, everything else is either a plot summary briefly mentioning him, an officially published guidebook, or a WP:VALNET site. The content here could be potentially merged to List of DC Comics characters: K#Killer Moth as an AtD. If there's any strong SIGCOV I missed, feel free to bring it up because I'd love a separate Killer Moth article, though from what I can tell the coverage just isn't here right now. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:08, 16 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. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the List of DC characters mentioned, no prejjudice for merging, unless content is found that shows SIGCOV outside plot summary/catalogue info.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: K in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mjolnir and Stormbreaker

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following the redirection of Mjolnir (comics) recently, where Mjolnir was found not to be separately notable from Thor, this article also suffers from similar issues. No reception or analysis independently of Thor or a movie plot summary from what I can see, and there's nothing in the article barring miscellaneous creation info that can easily be slotted into Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe). A WP:GNG failure. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:55, 16 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, Film, Comics and animation, and United States of America. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MCU items and artifacts have substantial additional bases for coverage compared to their comic book counterparts. BD2412 T 23:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 do you have sources to back that up? We cannot Keep on an assumption that it is notable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that there are 20+ sources in the article is reassuring. BD2412 T 00:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @BD2412 as addressed in the nomination, none of them fall under Wikipedia:SIGCOV that would provide notability (I.e, none of them show the weapons' real-world impact or importance). Many of these are just verifying plot summary, and the only worthwhile content (The dev info) does not provide notability and additionally does not require a separate split-out when there is no reception to justify that. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  What in Wikipedia:SIGCOV requires "real-world impact"? I mean, I suppose we could find sales figures for toy Mjolnirs, but the GNG allows for coverage of fictional objects without more, if there are sources covering those objects. BD2412 T 04:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @BD2412 the Wikipedia:GNG requires Wikipedia:SIGCOV, and in terms of this article, the only sources present are either low quality, all plot summary or Wikipedia:PRIMARY sources. The only bit of dev info that isn't PRIMARY (Or a single unreliable ref from Looper) is a single Comicbook.com source, and the rest of the sources fall under the various stipulations that state an article cannot wholly be plot summary. Given the extreme lack of sources and the overlap with a notable topic, Wikipedia:NOPAGE very much applies in this instance. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thor (Marvel Comics) just like Mjolnir (comics), since the only non-plot summary part is related to Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe) (film design etc.), I'd also support merging relevant parts there. The article is a weird synth, trying to cobble info on two entities, neither of which has stand-alone notability (as seen in the fact that their articles do not exist anymore, or never did). And while there is sourcing discussing them, it rarely has WP:SIGCOV that goes beyond plot summaries, or visual description of flm props. Some sources also discuss Beta Ray Bill's Hammer, so why isn't the article called Mjolnir, Stormbreaker and Hammer? It's very random. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison film/comic: "Thor Love & Thunder: Comic book evolution to the film". Daranios (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe). If you ignore the comic book history and in-universe trivia there is very little information here about the props used for the films, and no reception information. Unless someone is planning to do a major overhaul of the page, I don't see any good argument for keeping it. A lot of the same content is already covered at the MCU Thor page and I don't think it would be out of place to include the few extra bits from here in that article. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per Piotrus. Encyclopedia articles need reliable third-party sources to provide real world context, per WP:GNG. Most of the WP:PLOT elements are already covered elsewhere. I'm neutral on the target, and have no objection to there being a primary and secondary target until we establish a better practice with Marvel Comics WP:CFORKs. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Um.. if comic book Mjolnir was merged to comic book Thor, wouldn't movie Mjolnir be merged to movie Thor? Which has all the costume stuff? Hyperbolick (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hyperbolick: Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe) is already 100k, and will inevitably grow larger in the future as the character continues to be used in storylines, receives new reviews, and is further examined for his character arc. Mjolnir and Stormbreaker is over 30k on its own, already a good-sized article. While this would be a better merge target conceptually, these are two subjects that can sustain their own individual articles. BD2412 T 20:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - But how much redundancy there? Page talks about how Thor uses it to fight this guy and fight that guy, same fights described in the movie character Thor page. We know what he’s fighting with so we don’t need separate mentions of Thor being in a fight and then the hammer being the weapon used in the fight. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the only non-redundant info that pertains to the movie incarnations in particular are the brief paragraphs discussing how the hammer was created for the films I mentioned in the nom; this can be slotted into the article without bloating the target article extensively. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Thor (Marvel Cinematic Universe): In keeping with consensus established for the comics version, this should be merged into the MCU article, given it is a subtopic of the main wielder of this fictional element. I do think we should be careful about what fictional material deserves dedicated articles and how much is included, even if they meet general notability, to avoid WP:FANCRUFT (there is even a redirect to there for WP:MCUCRUFT, so clearly others believe this is still a growing issue). — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Trailblazer101: See my response to Hyperbolick above on this proposed merge target. BD2412 T 20:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of adult animated feature films nominated for Academy Awards

(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. Reywas92^Talk 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]

Actually never mind on that last part - got my answer. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Maximum Ride characters

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Mika1h (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Questions at Mika1h: Could you please comment a bit on your search results of the Google news search? Because there are some hits, but I don't know why they may not be helpful. And did you included a Google Scholar search in your WP:BEFORE search? Because again there are some hits there. Thanks! Daranios (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like the only source that could be considered in-depth for the characters: [3]. Feel free to point out other significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 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]

Lola & Virginia

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Spain. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 10:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Common Sense Media has a review: [4]. --Mika1h (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find PR items about it streaming on Hulu in the USA, nothing else. I don't see enough for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FR and ES wiki articles only use primary sourcing, so no help there either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: analyzed here in the journal Revista Internacional de Comunicación y Desarrollo published by the University of Santiago de Compostela. Geschichte (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Geschichte, some additional coverage here [5][6]--Asqueladd (talk) 17:55, 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]

Make New Friends but Keep Discord

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ꧁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: [7], 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]

List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations

(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]

Keep per one of the comments made by @Daranios:. Plus, a lot of redirects go to this page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PERX and WP:POPULARPAGE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:55, 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]

Comment. I'd rather see Teams and organizations of the Marvel Cinematic Universe handled (redirected/merged here first). We really need to deal with that pointless MCU forking of content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 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]

Keep: Deletion is not cleanup. If there is a problem with criteria create a better criteria. Lightoil (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just vaguely waving at policies without explaining how it can be cleaned up to be enyclopedic doesn't help. What makes a "good" Marvel team as opposed to a bad one to put on this list? Nobody would ever agree on a criteria that makes sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comics and animation proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Templates for discussion