Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DELSORT/COMICS)
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Comics and animation|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Comics and animation. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Article alerts are available, updated by AAlertBot. More information...


 Scan for comics AfDs

Scan for animation AfDs
Scan for webcomics AfDs
Scan for comics Prods
Scan for animation Prods
Scan for webcomics Prods
Scan for comics template TfDs
Scan for animated series template TfDs

Related deletion sorting

Comics and animation

edit

The Podcats

edit
The Podcats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy Crawlies

edit
Creepy Crawlies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marlinspike Hall

edit
Marlinspike Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was tagged for speedy deletion four years ago (by User:Piotrus). The original rationale still applies:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

The tag was removed without addressing any of the issues. Despite the request for discussion, I could not find one.

I agree with the rationale for deletion. WP:BEFORE only shows official Tin Tin materials and other licensed sources. Jontesta (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I oppose the proposal for deletion. Tin Tin has been a notable figure in international popular culture over a very extended period and Marlinspike has provided a comprehensive character development and event framework for much of this time. Several of the Tin Tin "adventures" are set predominantly or entirely in this environment. Wikipedia page view, edit and page watcher statistics appear substantive for a short but well written and attractively illustrated article. Citations and source references are adequate for a fictional subject. Removal would frankly appear to be a pointless and potentially unpopular exercise. If however the consensus is for deletion then the alternative of merger should be given serious consideration. Buistr (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. First, about the speedy; a fictional location is not included among the valid speedy deletion candidate categories, so that was never the correct approach. As for notability, "Moulinsart" or "Chateau de Moulinsart" are among the most notable fictional locations in Belgium and France, instantly recognisable to millions. We have whole books like this, "The daily life at Marlinspike", which talks about Tintin in general, but also at length about both the village of Marlinspike and the castle. If there is a good merge target perhaps this can be merged, but deletion is not warranted. Fram (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment currently, I am leaning towards a Redirect to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. All of the sources discussing Marlinspike are official guidebooks, at least from what I can see here. However, I do not know if the nom or anyone else has partaken in a source search in French sources. I would not know where to start unfortunately, but a search through there may prove more fruitful than an English search given Tintin's ubiquity in Belgium. I won't be changing my vote unless something is found, but I do feel there may be promise that hasn't been uncovered yet. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey's Mechanical House

edit
Mickey's Mechanical House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG with only one source. Almost entirely a plot summary. Found nothing via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Mysteries

edit
AfDs for this article:
Lost Mysteries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm rather surprised that this survived the earlier deletion discussion, which seems very shallow. Most of those calling for keeping it cited only the sheer number of sources all piled up in one place, with apparently nobody, including the nominator, actually looking at them. Well, I've looked at them all, or at least those that are still online, and they are all nearly exactly the same: some fan horror fan website or podcast writes like two paragraphs saying "these are kind of cool" and then reproduces several of the illustrations (although those have mostly been taken down now as well). I didn't find a single one that a person could honestly characterize as significant coverage from a reliable source.

The use of external links is also problematic, we don't usually include 140 external links in the body of an article, or any at all, actually. It would be more effort than this article is worth to even correct this problem as this appears to have been a flash-in-the-pan fad that the artist did to raise money for some other project, from what I can glean from the extremely scant actual coverage that goes beyond "hey look at this." Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Comics and animation. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't agree that it can be characterized as a "flash-in-the-pan fad" when it's been going on for 10 years continues to get coverage since the last time a source was added to the article, 1, 2, 3. What can be considered "in depth" is highly debatable, personally I would say that what is here gets the subject over GNG. And "article is bad/weird/unusual" is not a valid reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just saying What can be considered "in depth" is highly debatable is easy enough, but I don't think you can actually show that any of this coverage has any depth at all, and also none of it is what would be considered a reliable source, which you haven't addressed with your reply. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are considered reliable by the horror project as far as I know.★Trekker (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing whatever specialized sourcing guideline you are referring to. "I think a WikiProject agrees with me" is not a valid argument as that is obviously not how we determine what is a reliable source. Geek Tyrant, for example, does not look at all like proffessional journalism. Neither does The Retroist, which spilled all of 131 words on the subject, hardly in-depth coverage. Paste (magazine) seems an ok source, but they wrote only five sentences, that again, boiled down to "hey look at this guys Tumblr" and nothing else. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Little Pony villains

edit
List of My Little Pony villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR without independent sources, or any indication of notability. There is already a list of List of My Little Pony characters with its own errors and problems. Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to arbitrarily make repeated articles about the same topic unless there is WP:SIGCOV to justify it. Jontesta (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of My Little Pony characters. This article is a great labor of love but I really don't see anything indicating any independent notability for it as its own list. jp×g🗯️ 07:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie

edit
Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking significant coverage per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 20:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is generally unwise to assume that a film that is still in production will be notable when/if it is publicly released. In particular, the WP:NFF guidelines state: "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." This does not seem to be the case. It also states: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines..." I think it is clear that these criteria have not been met in this case. Of course the editors can retain a draft or the article could be draftified, but it is not suitable for main space. Lamona (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gabby's Dollhouse#Film as an WP:ATD. I think this is a fair compromise between Lamona and Mushy Yank. Overall, though, I have to agree with Lamona and the nomination that this doesn't really meet WP:NFF due to a lack of significant coverage. Stating that the film is live-action and animation and that the live action piece is in progress alone does not satisfy the NFF requirements. We have three references (expanded here to include publisher): Ref 1,[1] Ref 2,[2], and Ref 3.[3] Refs 1 and 3 offer significant coverage; however, they are not of the production, just the announcement of the project. They are also on the same date and from the same company, and the way they are structured, these are really reports based off the same industry announcement, both of which go against WP:INDEPENDENT (same company alone, they're probably OK given different editorial structures, but the nature of the "report" reduces the relevance.) Reference 2 does not WP:VERIFY the information that it claims, as the production is not actually listed. I checked the archives, and they do not help, either. (See archives on 10, 17, 21, and 23 July, respectively. I cannot get them to display, but perhaps someone else can?) The problem with this site is that it is formatted in a way that getting verifiable archives is next to impossible. Maybe archive.today would work, but it doesn't have any entries. Anyway, I still WP:AGF that the information was once there given the listed access date. The problem remains that even if it was there, it would not provide any WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage. Basing this off the current entries, it provided a simple fact verification of the start date, and did not provide any prose reporting on this production, failing the significant coverage piece needed to meet NFF. A list of facts is good to verify information, but not to establish notability. -2pou (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Filming already started and they have a release date, there's no reason to delete the page. KingArti (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ McClintock, Pamela (25 April 2024). "Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie to Get the Big-Screen Treatment in 2025". The Hollywood Reporter. Penske Media Corporation.
  2. ^ "In Production - Creative BC". Creative BC. July 10, 2024. Retrieved July 10, 2024.
  3. ^ Anthony D'Alessandro (April 25, 2024). "DreamWorks Animation Dates Big Screen Version Of Netflix Streaming Series Gabby's Dollhouse For Fall 2025". Deadline Hollywood. Penske Media Corporation. Retrieved April 25, 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comics and animation proposed deletions

edit

Categories for discussion

edit

Redirects for discussion

edit

Templates for discussion

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Comics_and_animation&oldid=1239396370"