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

How It Should Have Ended

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

All of these sources are either from unreliable websites like youtube, twitter and facebook, or from the source itself, fails GNG. TzarN64 (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My opinion here may hinge on the content of the first three sources in the article which are books that I cannot access at the moment. There is occasional coverage in national newspapers for some videos [1] that could be included in the article. There is persistent coverage on websites like Screen Rant which is considered somewhat reliable excluding info of living persons per WP:RSP. In-depth has been hard to find with relatively quick search, but it may be buried among routine coverage of individual videos. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About coverage on Screen Rant as it relates to notablity for our purposes here, I will say this: Screen Rant is a low-quality source (to a large extent a listicle content farm) whose uses on Wikipedia are limited. It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis. It is likewise not a source that should be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight. TompaDompa (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Received a Streamy award for Best Animated web series. https://www.streamys.org/nominees-winners/2010-nominees/ Coverage abounds. Cleanup might be necessary. -Mushy Yank. 12:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Unicorn Gundam

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

Boldly merged and BLARed this to Mobile Suit Gundam Unicorn but was reverted. I do not think this statue warrants a standalone article. ~~There is barely any meaningful content here;~~ the article more closely resembles an entry in a travel guide for prospective tourists than an encyclopedia article, and the topic can be amply covered within the article about the series (edit: as I discussed later in the AfD following additional edits to the article, I think it would fit best as a section of DiverCity Tokyo Plaza) or on the Cultural impact of Gundam page (or both). silviaASH (inquire within) 13:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Addendum: The article has certainly improved, but I still think that the content in its current state would be better served as a subsection of another article where the topic can be given more thorough context.) silviaASH (inquire within) 14:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, Entertainment, Travel and tourism, Popular culture, and Japan. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and HEY. Re: "There is barely any meaningful content here" -- WP:SOFIXIT! This nomination is a statement about the current state of the article, not the amount of coverage the subject has received. I'm not convinced WP:BEFORE was completed and this should probably have started with an article talk page discussion. I've added quite a few sources to the article, which should be expanded and improved, not deleted. I also see there are quite a few non-English sources, if any multilingual editors are able to review. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did look up the subject before nominating- I didn't see an extraordinary amount of coverage. While the subject does clearly satisfy GNG, I still don't think it meets WP:PAGEDECIDE, even after the improvements that have been made. I just don't think there's that much to say about the topic that can't slot neatly into a section on Cultural impact of Gundam or DiverCity Tokyo Plaza, both articles which themselves could use some improvement. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the subject does clearly satisfy GNG" is a reason to keep the article. Instead of worrying about how to update multiple articles about the topic, I think it makes more sense to focus on updating this article, so I'll keep workin' on it! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I went and looked at the sources that have been added more closely, and while it's evident that there's more to talk about in regards to the statue than I may have initially thought, I still think that all of this information would be better off merged into the DiverCity Tokyo Plaza article. Many of the currently cited sources ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) only mention the statue trivially, in a long list of other recommended tourist spots. They say it's cool and everything (don't get me wrong, the statue is very cool and I'd personally love to go see it), but don't really address it in detail, so I don't think all of these qualify as WP:SIGCOV. The sources which do address the topic significantly ([15], [16], [17], [18]) do shed more light on the creation and establishment of the statue as an attraction and the motives for its construction, but I think all of this information could be summed up in about a paragraph within the DiverCity article. Two of the sources are just mirrors of one another ([19], [20]).

Finally, the last couple of citations ([21], [22]) don't really talk about the statue itself so much as they talk about the place where the statue happens to be. The SoraNews source, in particular, primarily uses the Unicorn Gundam as the lead to talk about the DiverCity Plaza as a whole, and its many Gundam attractions. This is also the case with several of the 13 citations that mention the statue trivially- they do it within sentences (sometimes even within the same sentence) of bringing it up as the main attraction at the DiverCity Plaza. The headline of the paragraph in this source, just to name one of them, says as the heading of the paragraph in which the statue is acknowledged, Gundam-themed mall opened in Tokyo. This is a clear and consistent pattern even in the sources which acknowledge the statue non-trivially- they primarily discuss it as the centerpiece of DiverCity, and its numerous other Gundam-related attractions.

This is why I think the statue isn't independently notable. It isn't ever discussed independently of the mall. For this reason, I think it would be best (again, per WP:PAGEDECIDE), to merge the contents of the article into the DiverCity Tokyo Plaza article, and discuss it as the primary attraction of that area. Being discussed in a standalone article means that readers are missing the context of the statue's ultimate purpose, which is to attract people to the mall and hopefully get them to purchase a Gunpla. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We'll have to agree to disagree, but for now I've added several additional news sources specifically focused on the statue and I'll continue to tinker at the article as I have time. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe redirect to DiverCity Tokyo Plaza, which already has a paragraph on this. This is a statue at a shopping mall with no sign that this is a significant monument. Asparagusstar (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure if we have a notability guideline for statues or art installations or attractions (though, if we do, I'd definitely like to know about it), but this likewise seems to me to not be independently notable of the DiverCity Plaza. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd say since WP:ARTIST has standards like "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" or "The person's work has become a significant monument," then notability for an individual work of art would have similar standards. This statue is not a significant new concept, doesn't display significant new techniques, isn't a significant monument, etc. Asparagusstar (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily meets notability requirements with lots of coverage in RS. APK hi :-) (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The DiverCity Tokyo Plaza article seems quite underdeveloped. Is there any reason these articles couldn't be merged? I think this needs someone to check through Japanese sources to establish the notability of both subjects. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per APK, easily meets GNG and HEY. Lots of adequate sourcing on the page. Seems the fact that it is exhibited at a shopping mall is being used as a negative of some kind. Many statues are in malls, airports, etc., public places where people gather are fine venues for artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Been thinking I may have made a mistake in opening an AfD (I jumped to that thinking it was necessary because of the reversed BLAR) and I should have opened a merge proposal discussion instead. I still don't think the article meets PAGEDECIDE, but I ought to have given more consideration to if AfD was the appropriate venue for that concern. Anyway, at this point I think I don't support deletion in any case, with the clear improvements the article has received, this should be either kept or merged. If this AfD closes as keep I'll wait a bit for development to happen and perhaps consider discussing a merge down the line if I feel that my criticisms remain relevant. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such a full and improved page shouldn't be merged, as the only reason for a merge would be its location and not judging the artwork on its own merits. Commendable comment, not every nominator (far from it) will reconsider their nom during a useful discussion, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)a[reply]
Weak keep. Right now it's not very big, but there is enough coverage for this to merit stand-alone article. I expect more sources could be found in Japanese. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DiverCity Tokyo Plaza per Asparagusstar if no sources are found. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even the nominator no longer thinks the article should be deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources added is good enough. This is even excluding any JP lang sources. ITmedia, Famitsu, Nikkei Another ITMedia. This way way enough for a seperate article, I was only in page 5 on Google News in JP name search and I can confidently say this is enough. We should not merge start-class article with a full pledge sections. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Japanese name so you can search it the JPN name. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with DiverCity Tokyo Plaza. Maybe like 2-4 paragraphs. Can't seem to find any reliable sources to show notability as a standalone article, but the shown references probably allow a section. I have read WP:NOPAGE before making my opinion. Yours truly, Stuffinwriting | talk 03:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doorman (character)

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

A minor superhero in Marvel comics and a member of the Great Lakes Avengers. Doorman has very little in the way of coverage; a search only turns up WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, which do not indicate notability, or brief mentions as part of the Great Lakes Avengers when that group receives separate discussion. He is not individually notable from the Great Lakes Avengers, and I feel as though a redirect there should more than suffice given what little coverage of him exists. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources that have been added to the article. BOZ (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of these sources are either plot summary or hail from trivial mentions or Wikipedia:VALNET. There's little in the way of SIGCOV or an actual indication of the importance of the character here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims that were made by @BOZ: or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: D in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE should no worthy sources be found. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Flashpoint (comics) characters

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

A list of characters for a specific comic book story arc. This is not separately notable as a concept, as the characters of Flashpoint have received little coverage individually of their mainline counterparts. A search yielded nothing. All major plot relevant characters are covered in the plot section of Flashpoint, so I would support a Redirect here as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A reasonable WP:SPLIT. Remember that WP:NLIST indicates that list can be kept for navigational reasons; adding sources and removing material/spitting the page is necessary, though, which are cleanup issues. -Mushy Yank. 09:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims that were made by @Mushy Yank:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, a core content policy. There isn't a single non-primary source here, nor does there seem to be any discussion in sources of this grouping per WP:NLIST. This is merely the broader characters that appear in some story arc, many of which have articles due to independent notability, but not because they're in this specific arc, and so Mushy Yank's claim that this is a valid navigational list is just flat wrong. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but precisely because most characters have a page, a list is even more helpful in terms of navigation. WP:NLIST clearly states that although "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists" "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." (emphasis mine; but maybe that too is "flat wrong"_. Also in terms of size, put back all this content in the article would make navigation extremely uneasy and a split is necessary. (But you have sources you can add if you wish, addressing the topic as a set: https://www.cbr.com/dc-flashpoint-heroes-ranked/ ; https://comicvine.gamespot.com/flashpoint-universe/4015-56524/characters/ ; https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/08/30/flashpoint-all-the-major-heroes-and-villains-in-the-epic-dc-flash-story https://comicsalliance.com/flashpoint-dc-comics/ and so on and they are also covered "in this specific arc" in The DC Comics Universe: Critical Essays. (2022). McFarland Publishing, pp. 118, 120 for example). -Mushy Yank. 00:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I almost forgot. You now have sources you can add but your reference to WP:OR was absolutely not relevant anyway because regarding content of fiction, the fiction itself is the source (a guideline); see the essay Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary for further information: "For especially large or complex fictional works, certain elements may be split off into additional articles per WP:SS. Such related articles should be clearly cross-linked so that readers can understand the full context and impact of the work. Such an article may have what amounts to a different kind of plot summary. For instance, an article on Hamlet the character as opposed to Hamlet the play would just summarize Prince Hamlet's individual plot arc through the play. You might begin the section with something like, "The play charts Hamlet's tragic downfall as he pursues revenge against his uncle Claudius", and then summarize the events that contribute to that tragic downfall, using all the same guidelines you would in general." That is precisely the case of this list, from a split of the main page. -Mushy Yank. 00:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these bar the Valnet source (Which doesn't contribute to notability) are all either just character listings or plot summaries. While verifiable, being verifiable does not make a subject notable. Additionally, the article still fails Wikipedia:PLOT, as this would be all plot summary without any form of notability tied to it. Per MOS:CHARACTERS: "do not include every peripheral character, or every detail about a major character; this is not an indiscriminate collection of information." This list clearly fails this criteria, and if the main Flashpoint article needs a small section, so be it. But a whole list is not necessary for a subject of Flashpoint's size and the relative non-notability of this particular subset of characters. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This list serves no recognized navigational purpose, and it is OR. While the source material can serve as a source for basic plot summaries, as noted above, that doesn't extend to vast swaths of detailed, opinionated material about dozens and dozens of characters, which is what this list is. I spot checked two of those sources; one was WP:UGC, and another had no information about the topic. If you actually want to present sources, please stick to usable ones. Regardless, it's hard to see how such an overly detailed, crufty list such as this is needed. If you want to include a main character list in the main article, then do so, but this isn't needed (or notable). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the above keep !votes, it does not meet WP:NLIST. Orientls (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claims made by @Mushy Yank An editor from Mars (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What claims? How do you get around the fact that there isn't a single source in this list, and it's complete OR? Or that there's no sourcing to demonstrate this as some kind of notable grouping? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Kramer

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

Unsourced biography from 2006. Could not find SIGCOV about him. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Comics and animation. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some coverage for someone with a similar name [23], I don't know if it's this person though. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it is the same person. IMDB (not RS, I know) has several Lance Kramers: [24][25] Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't follow WP:GNG and the lack of sources seems like grounds for deletion. Cottagechez (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, California, and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm yet undecided. He directed a number of episodes, so there should be sources. Most of the article was written by IP editors, but I reached out to Jdb00. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:CREATIVE#3, as having played a major role (directing) in the creation of a notable work The Simpsons, which has been the subject of multiple, independent reviews. I have found one article about him, from 2000, and several reviews of two short animated films of his shown in animation festivals in the early 1990s. Otherwise, I have found sources that confirm his role as director in the episodes of the Simpsons. I think that is enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE#3, as they provide verification of his role. (This person is not the same as the Lance Kramer who with his brother Brandon Kramer has made The First Step and Holding Liat - that Lance Kramer will probably be notable too.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that he means CREATIVE#3 as Kramer is not the "creator" of the Simpsons - that would be Matt Groening. And CREATIVE#3 mentions (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). However, the 3 articles mentioned may meet WP:BASIC. Can you put links to the articles here? Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE includes WP:DIRECTOR and other creative professions - it does not mean just the original creator of a series. The wording you quote is about what form coverage of "the significant or well-known work or collective body of work" can take: the work "must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work, for example ...". Lance Kramer directed 25 episodes of The Simpsons - it seems to me that he "played a major role in co-creating" it. The sources are in the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with you, as directing 25 episodes is very minor, out of the 783 (and growing) number of The Simpsons episodes. That is less than 5%. Will review the sources later on. Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legs (character)

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

A minor character in the DC Comics continuity. A search was difficult given the generic name of the character, but no matter what key words I used, the only coverage of Legs I found was in conjunction with Anarky, and only as TRIVIALMENTIONs at that. There is no coverage on this character beyond that, making him a WP:GNG failure. A possible AtD redirect could be to Anarky, who is the character Legs is most strongly associated with. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suppose it could also be merged to list of Batman supporting characters but this character is so minor I don't think it is worth it. Rhino131 (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of DC Comics characters: L in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we have two separate Merge target articles proposed so we have to settle on one for the purposed of our closing technology, XFDcloser.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of DC Comics characters: L: Not independently notable. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of DC Comics characters: L – Per above. Svartner (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphorus Rex

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

An incredibly minor character with basically zero reliable, significant coverage I can find. Complete failure of WP:GNG. I do not mind a redirect, but he seems like such a minor character that I'm not sure if he needs to stick around or not. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: R in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and redirect to Circus of Strange, with which the character is affiliated according to Comics through Time, p. 1361. Daranios (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two different suggested Merge/Redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per all as WP:ATD. I don't see enough sources to pass WP:SIGCOV, but the nom supports a redirect, which helps us reach WP:CONSENSUS. The amount of content to include at the target can be worked out through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tweedledum and Tweedledee (comics)

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

Minor villains in the Batman comics. A search yields only one small hit from Bleeding Cool, which is largely a plot summary of an appearance of the characters, with no other significant coverage beyond trivial mentions of the characters' existence. No indication of notability, and a failure of WP:GNG. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: T in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Batman villains where the characters already have an entry. Rhino131 (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or selectively merge, per WP:ATD. The sources only provide WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, which isn't sufficient for the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Batman villains. They may not be notable in themselves, but here we have at least some (secondary) sources which could improve the target as compared to a pure redirect. Daranios (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Batman family enemies, without prejudice against a selective merge. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are several suggested Merge targets. And List of Batman villains is unsuitable as it is a Redirect, not an article. For those editors who argued for it, please check links first before proposing them and what is your second choice?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Batman family enemies per above. As that is where the redirect for List of Batman villains links to, I assume the two users who listed that in their recommendation meant the same. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, exactly, that's the target I was looking at. Daranios (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, correct. I prefer that list to the general DC character list because it is more specific and the general list can become unwieldly. Rhino131 (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggested the other list because we had to put their media appearance somewhere on this website like any other characters who have pages that redirect to each of the List of DC Comics characters pages. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marv (Sin City)

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

Minor comic book character. While there is a reception, it is just a summary of several listicles, in which the character takes at best a 24th place. Other than that, this is just a plot summary and a list of appearances in various media. This fails WP:GNG and at best could be redirected to the List of Sin City characters _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Sin City characters: the info currently in reception can be merged to the list, condensed to about a sentence, probably, and the rest of the article is just plot summary. Did a quick google and didn't find anything obvious -- it seems unlikely by assumption he needs his own article separate from Sin City. I don't know of a lot of reviews that only talk about one character except for the most famous works. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is not a "minor comic book character"!!!!! I've expanded the reception. Please take less Sin City-related articles to AfD or do thorough BEFORES, Piotrus. Marv clearly meets WP:GNG. Thank you.-Mushy Yank. 19:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 10:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Sin City characters - Mushy Yank has done good work, but in my opinion all of these are passing mentions of Marv, except for maybe the Dan Rempala book, so it still doesn't meet GNG. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tons of other sources exist; might add more if I have time. (and thank you but I beg to differ, most of the sources I added are not only "passing mentions"). -Mushy Yank. 16:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added a couple of things again. No time to do more but sources exist (a lot). -Mushy Yank. 17:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per all, as WP:ATD. I see WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and listicles that don't support a separate article, but could improve the character list. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look harder, please. To quote the essay you are citing: "Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." -Mushy Yank. 18:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed AGAIN since its AfD nomination. --Mushy Yank. 18:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Mushy Yank. I fail to see how these are all passing mentions. Madeleine (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sin City yarns

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

Unreferenced plot summary. Unlikely term to be searched for. I don't see the need to redirect this. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Wholly unsourced fandom filler; the only improvement I could see outside adding sources is a link to shaggy dog story in the lede, which describes the concept of 'spinning a yarn', but this is just a wordier version of Sin City#Sin City yarns itself, which would be a proper WP:ATD. Nathannah • 📮 21:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a reasonable SPLIT of Sin_City#Sin_City_yarns. It just needs the sources. But as it has navigational interest, notability is probably not an issue. Worst-case scenario: merge it back into the main article(s). -Mushy Yank. 23:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has nothing to do with "navigational interest" (what do you even mean by that?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST states: " Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." -Mushy Yank. 10:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But this one does not fulfill anything; it's just a long unreferenced plot summary of the books. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, yes, it does: "Lists, tables, and other material that is already in summary form may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method. If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to either keep it embedded in the main article or split it off into a stand-alone page. Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy." On top of this, see what redirects there.Hell and Back. And Booze, Broads, & Bullets.. And two other yarns. So, yes it does clearly have merit in terms of navigation. -Mushy Yank. 20:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per Mushy Yank. If the content is suitable to be kept in a larger article, I see no detriment to it being split out as a list. BD2412 T 03:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We're just going to give a mulligan to the article having no references whatsoever? Nathannah • 📮 20:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  And one that is nothing but a WP:FANCRUFTy plot summary... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  As if references about one the most famous and notable book series in the history of the genre were hard to find....WP:FANCRUFT is an essay and to refer to it regarding such a highly-and-universally-praised work as Sin City is not very necessary. -Mushy Yank. 20:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Leaning delete Agree this fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. If the individual books/plots are notable, they can be given their own stubs/pages and this can be converted to an actual list. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - non-notable; Wikipedia is not a catalogue of subsubplots. And of course it's purely a coincidence that the article is wholly uncited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Sourced now. And easily improvable with the tons of existing sources about the set or the individual books. And no, these are no ’subplots’!!!!!! -Mushy Yank. 20:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry@Anonrfjwhuikdzz but.... ”if the invidual books are notable’?????? just inform yourself please (or simply read the page). They do have a page! And they are EXTREMELY notable.... -Mushy Yank. 20:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't say Sin City series was not GNG as a whole, but individual books may not be notable enough to warrant their own page. For the books that can pass GNG on their own, write pages for them and make this page into an actual list pointing to those pages. As it stands, this "list" is a catalogue of plot summaries and not a list at all. Information about the less notable books in the series can be merged into the main Sin City article rather than being placed here. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but individual books are very notable. And, again, they DO already have a page. For the rest, I am bit confused, yes it's a list of the yarns/episodes in chronological order of publication, which gives a good outline of how the series took shape, and it includes plot and publication details. Can be improved. Will leave it at that. -Mushy Yank. 00:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chiswick Chap. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a catalog of subplots, and this is wholly unsourced. Even if someone were to find sources for development and reception, it would duplicate the content that belongs at Sin City. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main Sin City page, which is missing plot summaries. Per MOS:NOVELPLOT, "An article about a novel should include a concise plot summary...There is usually no need to explicitly cite the novel as a reference". The page is too short to require splitting. That said, there's a lot of cruft that could be trimmed. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly accept a merge of an edited version to help the main article. Nathannah • 📮 00:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The plots are missing PRECISELY because they are there as a SPLIT.... -Mushy Yank. 20:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 20:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have strong arguments to Keep, Delete and Merge but no consensus so far. And a note at the bottom of this AFD asserts that the article has changed since its nomination so editors who weighed in here two weeks ago are encouraged to re-review the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning merge/delete I am still leaning toward merge/delete or merge/redirect. The four "yarns" with their own pages are notable on their own. I am still questioning the notability of the remaining books. In my opinion, the added citations on the page largely point to notability of the series rather than individual books. Some, like the reference to | dark horse comics or EBSCO really only establish existence, not notability. @Mushy Yank, it would be good to include pages or chapters for the book references you've added to make it quicker for other editors to judge notability. Yarns like "Just Another Saturday Night" that were adapted for the sin city films probably deserve their own page as adaptation into major films suggests notability of the original material.
Overall my thoughts remain largely the same as they did previously: create articles for the books that meet notability guidelines, merge short summaries of remaining books to the main Sin City page, and delete this page. The table of yarns on the Sin city page should be enough for navigation to the various pages for individual yarns and this article can be deleted or redirected as appropriate.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anonrfjwhuikdzz, you have cast two separate votes which is not permitted. You can only cast one Bolded vote. Please strike the "vote" that you no longer stand by. Do this by placing this code around the vote: <s>Vote</s> looks like ~~Vote~~. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just open the 4 first sources, for example. They have a link to the page of the book with significant coverage about the topic, as a set. Which is what NLIST requires. More sources exist. Feel free to create pages for other individual yarns, that would not make this list-page less useful. (I might add the page number to the ref template when I have more time but already spent a lot of time on this). -Mushy Yank. 11:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my delete !vote, I would also accept a merge as a compromise and an effort to reach WP:CONSENSUS. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed AGAIN since its AfD nomination. --Mushy Yank. 18:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At first blush I thought, "It's just a list? Then why not merge with the article about the series?" Then I read it. I found it educative and convenient. This is listed as "comment" and not "keep" because I don't have something more closely related to WP guidelines and policies than that I think the readers can make good use of it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you@Darkfrog24:. Actually WP:NLIST is probably the guideline you are looking for; apologies for quoting it again, adding emphasis (mine), though:"Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Best. -Mushy Yank. 19:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin (Sin City)

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

Reception is limited to a single listicle. Fails WP:GNG. Per ATD-R, could redirect to List of Sin City characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With less than 50 links coming into this article I would argue there's no point to a redirect either; this is just an average sidekick villain. Nathannah • 📮 22:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Roark family#Kevin – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Svartner, this article has been deleted so is not a suitable redirect target page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I made the comment the article still exists. It can all be redirected to the List of Sin City characters. Svartner (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, except is that list encyclopedic? But for as long as it exists, sure, that's a valid target. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One proposed redirect target has been deleted. Redirect elsewhere or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 14:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. A cursory search finds at least one indexed article discussing the character at some length, although it is not clear to me whether this was peer reviewed. It would be somewhat surprising if there is not more literature. BD2412 T 03:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:GNG. Notability has nothing to do with the state of a page. Inviting the nom to make less nominations and do better BEFORES. Thank you. Added a few things; more coverage exists, feel free to add it. -Mushy Yank. 19:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment your added sources are almost entirely Wikipedia:VALNET properties, which do not contribute to notability. Additionally, WhatCulture is unreliable per Wikipedia:WHATCULTURE. If this is all that can be turned up from a BEFORE I do not see there being much notability for this character. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Omelete is Brazilian. Tribute (magazine) is Canadian. Are they connected to Valnet? I don't think so. Another article is mentioned by another user above. Also unconnected to Valnet. Feel free to add other sources if you prefer and note that regarding VALNET: "However, opinions presented in editorials or list entries that satisfy WP:SIGCOV may be used sparingly to augment reception where notability has been established by stronger sources." The 1st concern of the nominator was "Reception is limited to a single listicle." I've expanded it. The second concern seems addressed as well imv. Feel free to remove what you wish. I might add more but there are so many character-related AfD nominations at the moment (:D) that I have no time to improve all concerned articles. -Mushy Yank. 16:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a source from Omelete in the article, nor above. The source noted above by BD2412 is also a contest submission by an undergrad student, as noted on the contest's webpage. I doubt a source published by a student can be considered reliable, especially since it hasn't been widely cited. That leaves Tribute, which is a short blurb, and from a listicle at that. A brief mention of its impact on Wood's career can be slotted into List of Sin City characters at Kevin's section. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are: https://www.omelete.com.br/filmes/sin-city-elijah-wood-lembra-teste-simples; https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/35254673.pdf ; added a couple of things to page. Meets GNG imv. Other things exist but no time. -Mushy Yank. 16:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot, just realized I never replied. The first one is about the same as Tribute in terms of its coverage; at a glance the paper looks like SIGCOV, but one source and a mention doesn't really justify a split in my view. This is content better covered at the list alongside other characters from the series. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added VARIOUS other sources (and they are much much more than "a mention") since your reply and I disagree. -Mushy Yank. 10:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 10:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, it's difficult to see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with no consensus keep, Mushy Yank has done a lot of good job here. I don't have the time to nitpick it now :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks fine now, GNG met, appropriate content fleshed out. No opposition to talk page merge discussion, but merge should not be a required AfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY thanks to User:Mushy Yank. Madeleine (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks good to me. Decent sourcing. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comics and animation proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Templates for discussion