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

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]

List of Maximum Ride characters

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Mika1h (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Questions at Mika1h: Could you please comment a bit on your search results of the Google news search? Because there are some hits, but I don't know why they may not be helpful. And did you included a Google Scholar search in your WP:BEFORE search? Because again there are some hits there. Thanks! Daranios (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like the only source that could be considered in-depth for the characters: [1]. Feel free to point out other significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reasons for deletion can be addressed with edits to remove unsourced information for-depth analysis while retaining character descriptions, etc. cited from the novels themselves. The series features a wide array of characters organized into multiple groups and I think it makes sense to keep as its own article as opposed to merging into the Characters section of the main article. Eulersidentity (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly valid split-out article, too large to fit in the main article. The series is now 11 novels, with manga and comic book adaptations, and a film. Best to just have all the characters in one place, than have the same information filling up all these different articles. Dream Focus 14:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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: [2]. --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 [3][4]--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]

Little Singham

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's on Netflix, which is pretty notable by itself. Though it doesn't meet WP:GNG for the english world, in a sense it is pretty notable to many viewers who watch it, not to mention it's wide range of Franchise movies. Maybe revamp it? 2601:600:8D82:6200:7527:8645:11B8:628E (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being on Netflix doesn't establish notability per WP:GNG. The series lacks significant independent coverage. It's also not part of the main Singham film franchise, only loosely inspired. Without strong sources, it doesn't meet inclusion criteria. Media Mender 📬✍🏻 🧪 13:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it's actually really notable across the diaspora and india itself. Though it is not notable per interpretations of WP:GNG that you give, this creates a slippery slope. What non-western media pieces do not fit a description on the English Wikipedia? There are many sources, and it would be better to redirect or revamp the page, I don't see reasons to delete the page. The views on this page are notable enough to warrant at least a redirect. The Copverse page already has a section related to the Little Singham, which could be expanded on or kept but certainly not removed. 2601:600:8D82:6200:5CE7:9E1:38B:B9F5 (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Taabii (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see enough sourcing in RS [5] this I suppose is fine, but all other sourcing I find is promo or in blogs. Oaktree b (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Rohit Shetty's Cop Universe#Animated series is a suitable redirect target. This page has had half a million views and a thousand edits in its seven years of existence; preserving the edit history with a redirect is a good alternative to deletion. Coverage of children's media is nearly non-existent in India, but this might change in the future. Cc @Oaktree b, Media Mender, and Taabii. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with a redirect as well. Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make New Friends but Keep Discord

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unleash the Fanboy had an editorial board, so it was not just a blog. I'm not sure what there is to gain from deleting an article for an episode of a notable show. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I searched their website for evidence of an editorial board and couldn't find anything; could you kindly link to that? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is evidence of a staff list here from the Wayback machine from 2013: [6], though that is the latest the web archive will go. From looking at other articles from Unleash the Fanboy at the time, there is evidence of an expanded staff list by 2015 (which is when the episode aired) but the Wayback machine did not capture it. I also expanded Connelly's coverage from her book.

As for WhatCulture, I understand that it is listed as "generally unreliable" under WP:WHATCULTURE, as the concern is that contributors "do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications" and editors note a poor record of fact checking, so that the facts written in an article is unverifiable. But this is an episode of a children's television show we're talking about. Every single statement in the review is verifiable because anyone can watch the episode and confirm what the author is saying. If the subject of the article was a living person then per WP:BLP of course we shouldn't use a generally unreliable source, but I don't agree with not being able to use a single article from a source because it was found to be generally unreliable, especially when the subject in question is not contentious at all. If a source is generally unreliable, why even use the word generally and why not just call it unreliable in that case? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the WhatCulture piece contains falsehoods is not in question; it’s just a poor source that cannot be used to establish the notability of a topic. A press release for the episode would have the same problem. As for Unleash the Fanboy, that staff list does not inspire any confidence in the weight of the website in establishing topic notability—it seems to just be some buddies who put a website together. They’re not journalists. I believe that if a TV episode received no more than a few sentences in a book, plus two reviews in poor sources, and no coverage more convincing than that, then it’s not notable. I understand we disagree; others will weigh in. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many notable subjects that did not receive much media coverage (Example? Some mathematicians with many widely cited papers don't meet GNG). They are not notable by WP:GNG, but by just good sense they are notable (and this show is very notable). Everything here is true, so why delete it? It's a clear case of WP:IGNORE. The rules were not made to delete articles like this one. MathKeduor7 (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give as example an article I've created: Treatise on Radioactivity. Clearly notable, but doesn't meet GNG. MathKeduor7 (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing that no subject should be deleted on the grounds of non-notability—or that notability guidelines are irrelevant to subject notability. You can argue that at Wikipedia Talk:Notability, but AfD discussions refer to the notability policy.

That mathematicians have their own SNG (WP:ACADEMIC) does not imply that episodes of My Little Pony don’t need to meet any notability guideline to be considered notable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I am arguing specifically for these types of articles. MathKeduor7 (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Redirect to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic season 5#ep98. I like to think I'm more lenient when it comes to keeping episode articles – typically, I look for just two good sources about the specific episode. Unfortunately, I don't see that. Using the reference numbers from this link:
- Ref 1 is a licensed guidebook, so it's not independent coverage.
- Ref 2 is routine coverage (most primetime shows get daily Nielsen ratings), so it's not significant.
- Refs 3-5 are hard to verify, but from a Google Books search, it appears that all mentions are brief and trivial. (Searching "Make New Friends but Keep Discord" returns exactly 3 hits corresponding to the 3 references here. The book has been scoured for any mention of the episode to include, even when the context is about something else, such as ref 5 detailing a character instead of this episode. That's not how significant coverage works.)
- Ref 6 is from a blog that has a giant "Write for Us" button at the top; to me, it's clearly a fan site, not a professional, reliable source. The generic about us page and the social-media–like staff pages support this (I'm skeptical of any site that gives its editors achievement badges).
- Ref 7 is more churnalism; like with 6, if anyone can write for them (which is why it's considered unreliable), it's more of a fan site than anything.

I'm not seeing any good sources for this article. There is a clear redirect target, so deletion is a step too far, but there's no good reason to keep this. And for those who think TV episodes should have their own notability guideline, you should know that many WP:TV members have pushed for a stricter guideline here – so sticking to GNG is probably a better route. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Doctor Strange. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eye of Agamotto

AfDs for this article:

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

Very niche fictional object, no evidence of WP:GNG for this topic. Pure plot summary and list of appearances, no analysis/reception. Per WP:ATD-R, maybe redirect this to Agamotto? PS. AfD 10 years ago was dominated by "arguments" like "important in-universe" (doubtful anyway), "no good merge candidate" (really?? It's in the title...) and "covered in dependent picture books calling themselves encyclopedias"). Not much help there... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 9 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} 08:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor Strange. The item is very associated with him in universe and tends to be adapted with him, and what little mentions it discusses it as part of Strange. The redirect is valid and a likely search term so I'd definitely favor it over a deletion. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the mystical artifacts section of Features of the Marvel Universe in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Strange per Pokelego99 - As said, pretty much all coverage of the Eye in sources is in relation to Dr. Strange, so there is nothing to indicate it is independently notable, and per WP:NOPAGE would be best covered under the same article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Strange per all, where it's already covered. This doesn't really pass WP:GNG outside of its relationship with the character. I am open to other redirect targets and a slight merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Strange per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:48, 16 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.

Serpent Crown

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

Very niche fictional object, no evidence of WP:GNG for this topic. Pure plot summary and list of appearances, no analysis/reception. Per WP:ATD-R, maybe redirect this to Namor, where this item is mentioned few times in the usual gargantuan plot summary there? Sigh _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 9 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} 08:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Namor. Doesn't seem to have any serious coverage about it specifically, definitely not deserving of an individual page. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current article is just pure plot summary with no sources that would indicate it passes the WP:GNG, and searches are not turning up any additional significant coverage in reliable sources. I suppose I would not be opposed to redirecting to Namor, as it is already mentioned throughout that article, if that helps form a consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Namor. Most of the big details seem to be there, and there's not much that needs to be merged. Valid redirect target as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the mystical artifacts section of Features of the Marvel Universe in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Namor per all. It's already covered there and doesn't have separate WP:NOTABILITY. A light merge would be fine, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sourced added to the article today. BOZ (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Those added sources are either speculations (which ultimately proved to be untrue) from unreliable sources like WP:VALNET sites, or simple plot recaps where the crown appears to fill out a "list of appearances". None of them offer any actual reliably sourced, non-plot summary commentary or analysis that would be sufficient for establishing notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Namor. Since the topic of the article does not yet deserve a separate page --Vjiralb (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Mandarin (character). (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin's rings

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

Niche fictional object, little evidence of WP:GNG for this topic (there is 2021 ScreenRant: [7] and a weaker 2022 from SR as well: [8]). That said, they are mostly plot summaries anyway (and the odds are good they mostly rewrote Wikipedia and Fandom...); what we have is pure plot summary and list of appearances, no analysis/reception. Slight merge and redirect to Mandarin (character) would suffice instead of hard deletion, per WP:ATD-R. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 9 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} 08:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mandarin (character), since they are very heavily associated with him and lack individual notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mandarin (character) per above. I am not seeing anything to indicate that they are independently notable to the Mandarin himself, and are already described in extreme detail at the target page. Rorshacma (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all. Doesn't pass WP:GNG on its own and sources appear to cover this in the context of the character. Support WP:ATD instead of outright deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mandarin (character)#Powers and abilities. Additional merge/edit for Mandarin's/10 rings subsection. Eulersidentity (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I created the article, the idea was to cover the various versions of the Ten Rings—starting with the Mandarin, then the film version, and later in the Shang-Chi comics. Since there were separate entries for the Ten Rings (organization) and for Wenwu (the MCU’s Mandarin), the content was eventually moved to Mandarin’s Rings, which discusses the different iterations and the creation of the MCU version that inspired the one used by Shang-Chi in the comics. In other words, if content is to be added elsewhere, it’s important to note that Ten Rings (object) has become a redirect to Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and Wenwu redirects to Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: M–Z. Splitting or fragmenting those articles would essentially undo all the research that has been compiled so far. Hyju (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mandarin (character) per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:55, 16 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.

Norn Stones

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

Niche fictional object, no evidence of WP:GNG for this topic. Pure plot summary and list of appearances, no analysis/reception. PS. Item used by several characters, so there's no obvious redirect/merge, although maybe to Loki (Marvel Comics)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 9 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} 08:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Loki (Marvel Comics). Most appearances in secondary sources I've seen are brief plot summary, but "THE CHARACTERIZATION OF BYRONIC HERO IN THE MAIN CHARACTER OF THE NOVEL LOKI: WHERE MISCHIEF LIES BY MACKENZI LEE: A MICHAEL RIFFATERRES SEMIOTIC ANALYISIS" has some serious analysis, although specifically within Loki: Where Mischief Lies. So on the one hand no stand-alone notability, and the Marvel Comics-based novel in question is not included in Loki (Marvel Comics). On the other hand, there the Norn Stones already appear, and that's the one character where analysis is available for future inclusion, so that should be the preferred target. Daranios (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meet GNG for fiction items.--Vjiralb (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Hollow (British TV series)

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. qcne (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On top of the earlier AfC rejections, this is the same topic as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocky Hollow, which led to a redirect to Bumper Films for the undisambiguated titleRocky Hollow. I'm not sure if that should be the correct course of action here, but it seems obvious that this (still) should not be an article (and the only reason it ever was the lower inclusion standards of 2008 that allowed for the first article, which were tightened considerably by 2022 and should make it clear we need actual significant coverage in reliable sources in 2025). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I should note that seemingly the only reason the article is called "Rocky Hollow (British TV series)" seems to be that both his previous drafts being rejected meant that he couldn't put it under either "Rocky Hollow" or "Rocky Hollow (TV series)". He also tried turning the article Bumper Films into a page for Rocky Hollow because he thought that page had previously been a redirect to Rocky Hollow. This all seems to be the actions of a user desperately trying to make an article work while ignoring the actual advice people give him. Harryhenry1 (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As noted, no new sources were added to the article from the drafts despite feedback from previous users. Again, this seems to have been added out of desperation to still include it somewhere on the site despite a lack of sources. For all that, I can see no reason why it needs to be an article in its own right. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me there seem to be a lot of problems with the nomination rationale with regard to WP:SKCRIT no 3. Being common is to my knowledge not a reason for deletion. We do have things like Lists of companies or Lists of animals, which are arguably much more common than the organizations here. We do have a lot of blue links, so this most likely is a list useful for navigation in accordance with WP:LISTPURP-NAV and WP:CLN. Such lists may even be kept without fulfilling WP:LISTN, depending on consensus. "dumping ground" and "more fitting for the Marvel Database wiki" might be the case if the goal were to collect all teams and organizations. On the other hand, it is totally policy-based to included entities which are not notable enough for a stand-alone article but still do have some coverage or encyclopedic purpose based on editors' disgression and consensus, as specified in WP:ATD-M. "nor does the article demonstrate sources that discuss Marvel teams and organizations as a whole" I believe is correct, but that's again no grounds for deletion according to WP:ARTN, i.e. current article content is not the decisive factor. So before getting into the abovementioned consideration based on the navigation purpose, I would like to know the result of the ~~required~~ WP:BEFORE search on secondary sources not yet in the article. And from the experience that comics have been increasingly analyzed in academia I'd ask to include the Google Scholar search in this consideration. Daranios (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That falls under WP:SOURCESEARCH, or maybe just WP:ADHOMINEM, as you are implying the sources exist and a WP:BEFORE was not performed, without actually stating where they are. You could just actually find the sources before casting aspersions. I certainly don't think all or even most of these teams are notable even as part of a list, and they are largely sourced to primary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: I apologize, I did not mean to be WP:ADHOMINEM! I don't know yet if there are sources. But as far as I can see you have only commented on sources in the article. As in any deletion discussion involving notability concerns it would really be helpful to get some elaboration on the results of the WP:BEFORE search of the nominator, as a starting point for their own searches of any participant in the discussion. Lack of such elaboration in my view in turn gets into WP:JUSTNOTABLE territory. Daranios (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would say the importance of redirects pointing here, rather than being a WP:POPULARPAGE argument (which is based on view statistics, not directly involved with redirects), is that a) there was consensus at several other discussions that a redirect here is the way to go, which should count for something with regard to the existence of this list and b) that this list does fulfill one of the basic functions of lists at Wikipedia as outlined in WP:CSC, 2., (as well as WP:ATD-M) and thus is very much in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. Daranios (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep according to WP:SKCRIT no 3.: As discussed above I don't see a policy-based rationale for deletion in the nomination, except for the pure statement "Clear WP:NLIST failure". As this is not at all obvious to me, I believe this falls under WP:JUSTNOTABLE. On the other hand this list fulfills a navigational purpose for encyclopedic content on this topic elsewhere on Wikipedia, as well as being a place for encyclopedic content on the topic which does not lend itself to stand-alone articles, as outlined in WP:ATD-M. It is also a well-warranted WP:SPLIT from Marvel Universe, within which teams and organizations play a vital role, as was also acknowledged in the nomination. Daranios (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is "not obvious to you", it does not make it not a policy-based reason, just a policy-based reason you personally think is wrong. Well, not unless you were Galactus and controlled reality. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So why not just fix the WP:JUSTNOTABLE problem in the nomination as explained in that essay on the deletion policy, as I've requested earlier? Simply claiming something does not make it a reality either (except for Galactus who just makes it so of course...). Daranios (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to answer more directly, yes, the nomination contains a reference to a policy. But it does not contain a rationale why this should apply here which is intelligible to me. And if it is not clear to me, then most likely "Clear failure", i.e. not needing further explanation, is not the case. Daranios (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Corps

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

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

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 Organizations. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Marvel teams list clearly fails WP:NLIST, so there is nowhere rational to merge or redirect. The article itself also fails notability. Marvel Wiki is that-a-way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The basics should be easily verifiable with (probably among many others) Smart Pop Explains Marvel Movies and TV Shows, p. 129-130, and Marvelous Mythology, p. 210. There is a small bit of commentary in the context of depiction of institutions in the MCU in "Time to Work for a Living: The Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Organized Superhero. ". Daranios (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am still feeling like WP:INDISCRIMINATE is failed by the article, so it doesn't change my opinion. There's also no single place that would make sense to redirect the term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's also no single place that would make sense to redirect the term may be the case if List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations were deleted, but only if no alternative fitting target can be found. So while we can continue the discussion here, it would be great if it were to remain open until that's decided at that deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to that, as if the list was decided to be notable, then it would absolutely be a viable place for redirection. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Collecting more sources: Brief commentary in The Twenty-First-Century Western, p. 261 (plus some plot summary p. 262, 264). "Beyond the Law: What is so “Super” About Superheroes and Supervillains?": The Nova Corps representing the state, including negative aspects; importance in the MCU. Daranios (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can only see a snippet of Super-héros ! - La puissance des masques, but it provides confirmation of the parallel to Green Lantern Corps by a non-Valnet source. And a really weird fact, Guardians of the Galaxy is listed as "Highest death toll in a superhero movie" because of the deaths of the entired Nova Corps in the Guiness Book of World Records. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nova (Richard Rider), who seems to be the primary Nova character. Given the bulk of Nova's notability is due to this character, and the coverage for the Corps is non-existent, it's likely better to redirect here, where the Corps are very relevant as part of the Nova character's backstory. Would also be safer on the chance the teams and organizations list is redirected or deleted via the ongoing Afd. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge parts as appropriate to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations (deletion discussion is pending), Nova (Richard Rider), and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe groups. Not sure about the best redirect target. Commentary has been found! It is so far quite limited, but coverage is not non-existent. Did not yet have time to search further, so casting my intermediate !vote. Interestingly, the commentary so far focusses on the MCU incarnation. Daranios (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing a slew of other deletion nominationts that was as much time as I wanted to spend in searching for sources. As only short secondary sources turned up which can likely fit into another (list other otherwise) article, a merge is fine with me. Daranios (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per Pokelego999. Limited coverage that doesn't pass WP:GNG, but there is a clear WP:ATD for the character this is associated with. Let's strive for compromise and consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations (deletion discussion is pending), Nova (Richard Rider) 200.46.55.53 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because a number of editors are recommending a Merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations and this article has been brought to AFD. Was there a second possible merge target article if this one gets deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: If it should come to that, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe groups has been suggested as an alternative target once, Nova (Richard Rider) twice. Daranios (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dalek comic strips, illustrated annuals and graphic novels

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Television, Comics and animation, Lists, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete Alert editors at https://tardis.wiki/ . This is somebody's hard work, they have just misunderstood the sourcing requirements here. NotBartEhrman (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comics and animation proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Templates for discussion