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

Chameleon (character)

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm electing to re-nominate this for deletion after it was nominated a few years back. Though I participated in the first discussion, I wasn't particularly adept in these discussions, but even now I still feel this doesn't meet the notability guidelines. The bulk of the votes for keeping were WP:ITSIMPORTANT votes, and of the sources identified, the bulk of them were either plot summaries, trivial mentions, or low quality WP:VALNET sources. Searches still yield absolutely nothing in the way of WP:SIGCOV for this character. This character just doesn't have independent notability from other Spider-Man villains, regardless of how many assertions are made that the character is important. Any of the brief, one sentence pieces of scattered commentary can easily be slotted into the Chameleon's list entry at List of Marvel Comics characters: C#Chameleon. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:38, 1 August 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 United States of America. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the ranked coverage in the reception section, describing him as an iconic villain, not just the first, and the detailed list of numerous appearances across comic books, film, television and video games. This is not just a plot summary. Including just the character's appearances would overwhelm the list of Marvel Comics characters article. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Brothers in Silk

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

A minor set of characters from DC Comics. A search yields quite literally nothing bar trivial mentions in announcements and VALNET listicles, and the current article cites no sources whatsoever. Clearly non-notable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:27, 1 August 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) 03:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Black Widow supporting characters

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

Has heavy overlap with Black Widow (Natasha Romanov); the bulk of the characters on this list are covered in-depth at Natasha's article already, and those that aren't seem to have little relevance to Natasha's character, as many of them are only here due to being affiliated once or twice with the character instead of being important, recurring characters in the Black Widow mythos. All major coverage of Black Widow's supporting characters is already present at the Black Widow article. There is no real reason for a split here that isn't just WP:CRUFT, and there's nothing to merge since every source in this article is a PRIMARY citation to comic strips. A viable AtD is to the supporting characters section at the Natasha Romanov article, where this content is discussed in greater depth than it is at this article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:24, 1 August 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 United States of America. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Life Noggin

AfDs for this article:

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

After seven and a half years since the previous AfD, I still agree that this YouTube channel fails WP:GNG. I am not sure whether the redirect Bobby43255 has created is appropriate, so deletion rather than redirection may be the appropriate outcome. GTrang (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Education, Science, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reads like a high school project. Geschichte (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This channel is not notable. It definitely fails WP:GNG. There isn't any coverage of this channel unless you include other YouTube videos and those aren't reliable sources. The article is also written terribly ("the channel has 1.9 million subscribers and a whopping 211 million views") and in a very promotional tone. Too many random YouTube channels and "personalities" make it into Wikipedia. Ashoburn (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some articles I found in Google mention the channel but the articles are mostly blogs. A website "Laughing Squid" comes up a lot and already is one of the two references used in the article. But "Laughing Squid" seems to cover basically every new video by this channel and the author is always the same "Lori Dorn", an author who pumps out hundreds of articles about new YouTube videos from various channels. That seems like SEO/engagement spam to me so that isn't a good website to use for references. There aren't any mainstream websites covering the channel except "hey new video!!" Nothing substantive to justify a Wikipedia article. Ashoburn (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parallax Studio

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

DePRODed alleging sources exist; no specific sources demonstrated that may prove notability, however, only a vague wave. Fails WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH with a dearth of significant coverage not specifically about games they developed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United States of America. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The studio created a video game with a fairly prolific cast and more footage than just about any other game, plus an independent science fiction film with Patton Oswalt, Robert Picardo, and Patrick Warburton. I understand sourcing was/is an issue, but I just added one from the Springfield News-Leader about MEAD. More will come soon, I'm just coming off a long work stretch. Jg2904 (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn nomination per WP:KEEP and WP:IAR. (non-admin closure)‎ Protoeus (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben 10: Omniverse 2

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

I have seen no reason why this should have a standalone article, tried to make it GA, but the lack of reliable sources (only 3, which only 2 are detailed), this could work as a section for Ben 10: Omniverse (video game). Protoeus (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game easily passes GNG, with a review from Nintendo Life for the Wii U version, and reviews from CD-Action, PlayStation Official Magazine Australia and Gamers Magazine for the PS3 version. (I consider the 3DS version a separate game, so I won't count those reviews, but if we did, it would be even more heavily covered). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for these reasons. Even the nominator already said that there are at least two good sources. Cortador (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom walked into a rake and stated that it passes WP:GNG (plus ZXC's note), so there's no other result that can be had. Nathannah • 📮 20:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn the nomination because I don’t think I should have even considered to nominate this due to it being a obvious keep. Protoeus (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ariel Velasco-Shaw

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

May not meet General Notability Guidelines Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bullshit! It has an official new website, GMA News Online. GeniusTaker (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

having a website isn't notable in 2025. Oaktree b (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check at the article again. I added some sources. GeniusTaker (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Comics and animation, Disney, Philippines, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The GMA article is about all I can find for sourcing. That's not enough to show notability. The other two sources in the article aren't helpful/aren't RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Izzy Sinclair

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

A comic book companion in the Doctor Who comic strips. A search for sources yields only two hits: [1] this, which only yields small bits of coverage, and this [2] which largely is plot summary with minor comments. Any other source mentioning her is a chiefly trivial mention in plot summary. This character just doesn't really have much WP:SIGCOV to back up a whole article. I'd suggest a redirect to List of Doctor Who spin-off companions as a viable AtD, since she is mentioned in that article already and her current article is entirely plot summary. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:46, 26 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 United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar 5 (upcoming film)

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTNEWS, unclear why this was moved to article-space from Draft, no objection to draftifying pending filming starting on this project. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify pending the start of principal photography. Jahaza (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The subject will certainly become notable as filming starts, but not now. LightlySeared (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avatar (franchise) The fourth film isn't even finished yet, there is no reason we need an article about a film that won't even have the fourth film's plot established for another year, and at this point the cast (even confirmed) is entirely speculative. Nathannah • 📮 20:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Avatar 4 or Avatar (franchise). – Aqsis Bey (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avatar 4 or Avatar (franchise). KyleBYerrick (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The article is entirely notable and relevant to discuss the film. A draft status should be the best option for it until more detailed information about the film's production is confirmed. Vazafirst (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 [3] 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 sourceds. 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]
Fair enough. Here's four ScreenRants pages that highlight Cerebro, out of ~25 that mention it 1, 2, 3, 4, Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 24 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]
Just on two specific points: The Springer source comments on the artistic rendering of Cerebro in the X-Men film(s) and how that impacts the character of Professor X, so some non-plot stuff. And how ever we stand on the impact of the appearance of the Lego set itself, this has been noted by third-party sources like this. Daranios (talk) 15:53, 22 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]

I would absolutely agree since most of the coverage in the article isn't covering significant real-life analysis of the character. Galaxybeing (talk) 09:41, 25 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]

Mutants and Mystics, p. 207-210, compares Cerebro to real-world (if esotric) programmes. Daranios (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Unauthorized X-Men, p. 49, criticizes the depiction in the film, "(Trans)National X-Factor: Patrick Stewart, Britishness and the Promotion of "X-Men"" analyzes the look. The Ages of the X-Men, p. 120, gives some analysis as "techno-fetish" compensation for Professor X' disability. "The Allegorical X-Men: Emblems, Comics, and the Allegorical Potential of Text/Image Hybrid Genres" interprets the name. Daranios (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Rtkat3. Features of the Marvel Universe would be ok, but I think Professor X has described this in-line with better context. Whatever the target I know people will search for this but it really isn't separately notable from the X-Men. We can select a main target and then have a "see also" for X-Men, Professor X, etc. Archrogue (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Professor X. I believe taking the listed sources together a full article can be written which also fullfils WP:NOTPLOT, and therefore notability is established. A significant portion of the commentary on Cerebro is in relation to Professor X, though, so I also would have no objection to a proper merge there on the basis of WP:PAGEDECIDE. Daranios (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Keep per the claims of Jclemens 👑 KingBegger · 💬 · ⚔️ 10:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the source analysis by Pokelego999. Unreliable sources and plot summaries are insufficient to write an article that meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOT. I would also support merge as compromise. Wikipedia becomes a WP:BATTLEGROUND when we use personal opinions that are inconsistent with WP:CONSENSUS based policies and consistent best practices. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cerebro has consistently been shown to have sources and be a standalone notable piece of sci-fi tech, as demonstrated above. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. "Features of the Marvel Universe" is pure cruft and I'd rather it be merged into Professor X if it has to be, but I don't think it does. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:08, 26 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why do fan articles like this get a pass if they're for Marvel? As the nominator says, there's no secondary coverage here. It's all just in-universe stuff. Fine for a fan wiki, but that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

Coverage should be a redirect to a section in whichever is the best of our infinite universe of Marvel articles, no more. 2A00:23C5:E9AC:DA01:6C4C:4E3:8ECB:EFDB (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TNT, regardless of whether sources exist, it needs a full rewrite anyway as the page is currently unsalvageable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect probably to S.H.I.E.L.D.. Coverage looks to be either trivial or unreliable or both, but this is a reasonable search term that is clearly mentioned in good secondary sources even if not really covered in depth. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources identified by Daranios. These provide enough WP:SIGCOV for the article to pass WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:25, 31 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss potential merge targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:37, 23 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) 14:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The very definition of "adult animated featured films" that forms the basis of this list appears to be novel to Wikipedia, or in other words WP:Original research. Since when is the United States Motion Picture Association rating the deciding factor? That's both arbitrary and WP:AMERICENTRIC. With that in mind, I don't see a merge as being appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 10:44, 31 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has zero sources found and lacks notability guideline in my view. 82.76.245.70 (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comics and animation proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Templates for discussion