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.
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:
Could possibly redirect to
Panini Comics, but I would be wary of a merge/redirect as this is unsourced. Sounds like it could be notable, but I couldn't find sufficient reliable sources to confirm it.
Boleyn (
talk)
19:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:GNG, before you nominate articles for deletion, you really should search in the native language of the topic. As you're the one making the proposal, I'd argue the burden of proof is on you to follow through with it. With machine translation it's really not that hard, as you only need a high-level understanding of what each source says. Almost every day I see deletion nominations like these.
Weak delete – I am not an expert at Korean sources and cannot quite tell you which of these sources are reliable right now, but this is what I'm finding:
sisaprime.co.kr, listed entry that is given ridiculously high praise (Google Translate gives me Kakao Webtoon, which has created major action/martial arts/fantasy masterpieces that will leave a lasting mark in webtoon history, such as .. Red Storm.
Segye.com might be a copy, extremely similar text)
I currently have no idea which of these are reliable, but sourcing is fairly weak either way. If someone can find better sources I haven't found yet, I'd be happy to see them. ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat)
15:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
weak keep: Coverage in a newspaper from Uganda
[1], doesn't appear to be a "pay to publish" article, I suppose Ugandans watch South Korean online manga-type stories?
Oaktree b (
talk)
00:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The Observer.ug article is a coverage of a different comic. Red Storm is only mentioned. The second source is just a single-sentence announcement.
Neocorelight (
Talk)
01:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is
WP:OR of a list of watercraft from batman comics. Even when you hone in on a discrete topic, it's sourced to angelfire. It has no independent reliable sources. There isn't
WP:SIGCOV for any of these boats / submarines / scooters / etc.
Jontesta (
talk)
23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, or Merge reliably independently cited content into another article if relevant. Most of this article is uncited, and most of it is trivia, and most of the cited content is not cited to independent
WP:RS. --
Softlavender (
talk)
03:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify I agree that the article is mostly uncited, and that article mainly mentions its appearances. I feel the article should be
taken back to draftspace, where it can be further researched-on and improved. It is notable, as anyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is. Right now, it definitely doesn't deserve mainspace. MKat your service.12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"[A]nyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is" does NOT mean the topic is notable, particularly not per Wikipedia's notability standards for article subjects. Nor is the quoted statement true, since the boat certainly does not occur in every episode or every game, etc.
Softlavender (
talk)
01:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Unlike the article on, say, the
Batmobile, this article is not really about a single, coherent topic, and is just a list of a bunch of unrelated watercraft that various incarnations of Batman happened to use, relying almost entirely on non-reliable sources. If anyone suggests a viable Redirect target, I am fine with that as an ATD, but a Merge anywhere would be out of the question due to the poor quality of the sources being used.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - per nom, is largely unsourced fancruft. Not particularly supportive of drafting, as I don't particularly think this is o r of those things more time will solve...
Sergecross73msg me14:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Zxcvbnm those two books seem to be plot summary to me. Additionally, the second book appears to be a primary source, while the first book appears to be an unauthorized encyclopedia that is not actually analyzing anything, and only giving plot details or summary information. The final source appears to be development info that doesn't contribute to showing independent notability, and is better off covered at
Batman Forever. None of these show any independent coverage from the source.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
20:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Being "unauthorized" has no bearing on whether a source can be used - we are not a fan wiki. DK books are not primary; they are published by
Dorling Kindersley, a known encyclopedia publisher.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Apologies, then, on misconstruing the books. I could've sworn at one point that "unauthorized" books were unable to be used, and I misread the publisher on the second. Either way, they're still only plot details and summaries of what it is with no real significant commentary. The sources don't really do much to show significant impact, especially since encyclopedias of various subjects are pretty standard fare in numerous big fandoms and often only give summary over commentary.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
21:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I do admit that, at least in this case, there doesn't seem to be commentary on the Batboat that would make it pass
WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but it is clear that the
WP:BEFORE here has come up wanting and needs more work. Hence, "weak keep" until someone decides to actually do an exhaustive search and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no external commentary on the impact or influence of the Batboat's existence.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If they aren't independent sources covering the Batboat in a context that would actually illustrate independent notability, then they aren't worth bringing up in the nomination and certainly wouldn't count in a BEFORE as being enough to salvage the article. If the sources you're using as an example of "the BEFORE not being done" are sources typically ignored in a BEFORE for not being significant coverage, then I'm not sure what your argument really is here. I can't speak on the nominator's BEFORE without them clarifying (To which I ask @
Jontesta to clarify just in case) but if the target article isn't notable then it shouldn't be kept solely on the basis of a
Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not a "sources must exist" argument. I have proven the article is notable beyond a doubt, whether it passes
WP:NOT is still unclear, but the current deletion rationale has been totally negated at this point.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
How have your sources in any way proven notability? Even in the case of the nom's rationale being faulty, there's been nothing asserted by those sources in the way of actual real-world relevancy beyond having plot summary in two Batman encyclopedias, which cover all manner of Batman-related content, regardless of notability, and dev info for specific movies. There's no notability asserted that is independent of its parent franchise in a manner that requires a split from any other article. I don't believe the nom is wrong either, since, per a search, the only mentions of the Batboat I could was
this and references to unrelated boats named after the Batboat that don't show notability in the slightest, and I can find nothing in Books or Scholar that isn't just more Batman encyclopedias or unrelated objects named Batboat. Batman's Batboat literally has nothing in the way of significant coverage.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
While helpful and good information, there's still not much showing a significant real world notability, given that this is one source discussing one film's production, which can easily be shifted to the main article for the film.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
21:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
My technology section at Batman claim is that it would be the only other place to mention the Batboat as some of Batman's other vehicles are already listed in that section. --
Rtkat3 (
talk)
15:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I know that "technology of..." articles are almost always cruft, but I'd support this being merged if the tech section was split into a
Technology of Batman article. It appears that a large amount of his gadgets and tech are rather notable, with at least a whole book having been written about them.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
06:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Besides the book, I found an article
here from reliable source GamesRadar+, and an article on
tech and various superheroes that includes a lot of coverage for Batman, focusing on how he is a "powerless" superhero who mostly relies on tech.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
22:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's sourcing. Merging to Batman#Technology sounds like a recipe for SIZE issues, but is certainly a better ATD than outright deletion. Creating
Technology of Batman as a
WP:SS parent for the various articles seems like the superior way forward.
Jclemens (
talk)
06:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:GNG. It lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. The references cited are mainly announcements and TV schedules, which do not provide the necessary independent verification of the show's notability. It has "additional citations needed for verification" tag since May 2023.
M S Hassan (
talk)
18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different target articles proposed here for a possible Redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep There appears to be enough sourcing, and the nomination statement doesn't engage with what there is. There are multiple CBR references, but there appear to be enough RS to meet GNG, and the burden of BEFORE is on the nominator to show how what's already in the article does not.
Jclemens (
talk)
16:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There are no less than five non-Valnet online sources and one magazine source listed. The above does not constitute a source analysis.
Jclemens (
talk)
22:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
-The Los Angeles Times source is merely a one sentence mention of Linda Gary voicing her. Same deal for the Polygon source, except with a different VA.
-The San Francisco Chronicle source is a plot summary overview of her character
-The MTV Link is broken, so I cannot view it. I cannot view the SFX sources either.
-The HashtagTV source doesn't seem to even mention her? The source also doesn't seem reliable, and even then is only verifying that she'll appear in an upcoming production.
There's not even commentary or dev info here- at best there's two sources verifying VAs, which is not enough to pass the GNG bar. Nom seems to have done a BEFORE, and a brief BEFORE didn't yield much for me, either. Do note if I've missed anything, but this seems to be a rather minor character with very little additional sourcing to back up any substance. Ref count is not equal to notability.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
04:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but MTV link is broken again; all links to mtv.com archives seem intentionally broken, but wayback may have a copy of it. Regardless, the SFX source has still not been dealt with.
Jclemens (
talk)
07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Article is definitely in a pretty bad state, but Evil-Lyn is one of the most significant characters in the franchise. Given the presence of MOTU: Revelation, a couple of sources do exist pertaining to Lena Headey's portrayal of the character; interviews and reviews. From some research I've done, although critics from the 1980s don't seem to bring up Meg Foster often when discussing the live-action film, retrospective reviews do somewhat often single her out for praise. The article itself may not show it, but sources and coverage of Evil-Lyn do exist.--
PanagiotisZois (
talk)
18:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Interviews may count as primary, but depending on the other/surrounding writeup may well count as independent RSes contributing to notability.
Jclemens (
talk)
07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
How can an interview be primary for a fictional character? Were they interviewing Evil-Lyn in character on some in-universe interview show? I would think that only the show itself is a primary source for the show.
BD2412T00:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Merge and Keep. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!19:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge to the character list for now due to lack of sourcing and a clear
WP:ATD. No objection to a spin-out later if enough sources are found to rewrite the article.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
20:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
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:
Could possibly redirect to
Panini Comics, but I would be wary of a merge/redirect as this is unsourced. Sounds like it could be notable, but I couldn't find sufficient reliable sources to confirm it.
Boleyn (
talk)
19:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:GNG, before you nominate articles for deletion, you really should search in the native language of the topic. As you're the one making the proposal, I'd argue the burden of proof is on you to follow through with it. With machine translation it's really not that hard, as you only need a high-level understanding of what each source says. Almost every day I see deletion nominations like these.
Weak delete – I am not an expert at Korean sources and cannot quite tell you which of these sources are reliable right now, but this is what I'm finding:
sisaprime.co.kr, listed entry that is given ridiculously high praise (Google Translate gives me Kakao Webtoon, which has created major action/martial arts/fantasy masterpieces that will leave a lasting mark in webtoon history, such as .. Red Storm.
Segye.com might be a copy, extremely similar text)
I currently have no idea which of these are reliable, but sourcing is fairly weak either way. If someone can find better sources I haven't found yet, I'd be happy to see them. ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat)
15:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
weak keep: Coverage in a newspaper from Uganda
[1], doesn't appear to be a "pay to publish" article, I suppose Ugandans watch South Korean online manga-type stories?
Oaktree b (
talk)
00:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The Observer.ug article is a coverage of a different comic. Red Storm is only mentioned. The second source is just a single-sentence announcement.
Neocorelight (
Talk)
01:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is
WP:OR of a list of watercraft from batman comics. Even when you hone in on a discrete topic, it's sourced to angelfire. It has no independent reliable sources. There isn't
WP:SIGCOV for any of these boats / submarines / scooters / etc.
Jontesta (
talk)
23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, or Merge reliably independently cited content into another article if relevant. Most of this article is uncited, and most of it is trivia, and most of the cited content is not cited to independent
WP:RS. --
Softlavender (
talk)
03:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify I agree that the article is mostly uncited, and that article mainly mentions its appearances. I feel the article should be
taken back to draftspace, where it can be further researched-on and improved. It is notable, as anyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is. Right now, it definitely doesn't deserve mainspace. MKat your service.12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"[A]nyone who has watched a Batman TV show or played a Batman video game, etc. would know what the Batboat is" does NOT mean the topic is notable, particularly not per Wikipedia's notability standards for article subjects. Nor is the quoted statement true, since the boat certainly does not occur in every episode or every game, etc.
Softlavender (
talk)
01:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Unlike the article on, say, the
Batmobile, this article is not really about a single, coherent topic, and is just a list of a bunch of unrelated watercraft that various incarnations of Batman happened to use, relying almost entirely on non-reliable sources. If anyone suggests a viable Redirect target, I am fine with that as an ATD, but a Merge anywhere would be out of the question due to the poor quality of the sources being used.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - per nom, is largely unsourced fancruft. Not particularly supportive of drafting, as I don't particularly think this is o r of those things more time will solve...
Sergecross73msg me14:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Zxcvbnm those two books seem to be plot summary to me. Additionally, the second book appears to be a primary source, while the first book appears to be an unauthorized encyclopedia that is not actually analyzing anything, and only giving plot details or summary information. The final source appears to be development info that doesn't contribute to showing independent notability, and is better off covered at
Batman Forever. None of these show any independent coverage from the source.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
20:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Being "unauthorized" has no bearing on whether a source can be used - we are not a fan wiki. DK books are not primary; they are published by
Dorling Kindersley, a known encyclopedia publisher.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Apologies, then, on misconstruing the books. I could've sworn at one point that "unauthorized" books were unable to be used, and I misread the publisher on the second. Either way, they're still only plot details and summaries of what it is with no real significant commentary. The sources don't really do much to show significant impact, especially since encyclopedias of various subjects are pretty standard fare in numerous big fandoms and often only give summary over commentary.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
21:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I do admit that, at least in this case, there doesn't seem to be commentary on the Batboat that would make it pass
WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but it is clear that the
WP:BEFORE here has come up wanting and needs more work. Hence, "weak keep" until someone decides to actually do an exhaustive search and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no external commentary on the impact or influence of the Batboat's existence.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If they aren't independent sources covering the Batboat in a context that would actually illustrate independent notability, then they aren't worth bringing up in the nomination and certainly wouldn't count in a BEFORE as being enough to salvage the article. If the sources you're using as an example of "the BEFORE not being done" are sources typically ignored in a BEFORE for not being significant coverage, then I'm not sure what your argument really is here. I can't speak on the nominator's BEFORE without them clarifying (To which I ask @
Jontesta to clarify just in case) but if the target article isn't notable then it shouldn't be kept solely on the basis of a
Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not a "sources must exist" argument. I have proven the article is notable beyond a doubt, whether it passes
WP:NOT is still unclear, but the current deletion rationale has been totally negated at this point.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
How have your sources in any way proven notability? Even in the case of the nom's rationale being faulty, there's been nothing asserted by those sources in the way of actual real-world relevancy beyond having plot summary in two Batman encyclopedias, which cover all manner of Batman-related content, regardless of notability, and dev info for specific movies. There's no notability asserted that is independent of its parent franchise in a manner that requires a split from any other article. I don't believe the nom is wrong either, since, per a search, the only mentions of the Batboat I could was
this and references to unrelated boats named after the Batboat that don't show notability in the slightest, and I can find nothing in Books or Scholar that isn't just more Batman encyclopedias or unrelated objects named Batboat. Batman's Batboat literally has nothing in the way of significant coverage.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
While helpful and good information, there's still not much showing a significant real world notability, given that this is one source discussing one film's production, which can easily be shifted to the main article for the film.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
21:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
My technology section at Batman claim is that it would be the only other place to mention the Batboat as some of Batman's other vehicles are already listed in that section. --
Rtkat3 (
talk)
15:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I know that "technology of..." articles are almost always cruft, but I'd support this being merged if the tech section was split into a
Technology of Batman article. It appears that a large amount of his gadgets and tech are rather notable, with at least a whole book having been written about them.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
06:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Besides the book, I found an article
here from reliable source GamesRadar+, and an article on
tech and various superheroes that includes a lot of coverage for Batman, focusing on how he is a "powerless" superhero who mostly relies on tech.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
22:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's sourcing. Merging to Batman#Technology sounds like a recipe for SIZE issues, but is certainly a better ATD than outright deletion. Creating
Technology of Batman as a
WP:SS parent for the various articles seems like the superior way forward.
Jclemens (
talk)
06:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:GNG. It lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. The references cited are mainly announcements and TV schedules, which do not provide the necessary independent verification of the show's notability. It has "additional citations needed for verification" tag since May 2023.
M S Hassan (
talk)
18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different target articles proposed here for a possible Redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep There appears to be enough sourcing, and the nomination statement doesn't engage with what there is. There are multiple CBR references, but there appear to be enough RS to meet GNG, and the burden of BEFORE is on the nominator to show how what's already in the article does not.
Jclemens (
talk)
16:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There are no less than five non-Valnet online sources and one magazine source listed. The above does not constitute a source analysis.
Jclemens (
talk)
22:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
-The Los Angeles Times source is merely a one sentence mention of Linda Gary voicing her. Same deal for the Polygon source, except with a different VA.
-The San Francisco Chronicle source is a plot summary overview of her character
-The MTV Link is broken, so I cannot view it. I cannot view the SFX sources either.
-The HashtagTV source doesn't seem to even mention her? The source also doesn't seem reliable, and even then is only verifying that she'll appear in an upcoming production.
There's not even commentary or dev info here- at best there's two sources verifying VAs, which is not enough to pass the GNG bar. Nom seems to have done a BEFORE, and a brief BEFORE didn't yield much for me, either. Do note if I've missed anything, but this seems to be a rather minor character with very little additional sourcing to back up any substance. Ref count is not equal to notability.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
04:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but MTV link is broken again; all links to mtv.com archives seem intentionally broken, but wayback may have a copy of it. Regardless, the SFX source has still not been dealt with.
Jclemens (
talk)
07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Article is definitely in a pretty bad state, but Evil-Lyn is one of the most significant characters in the franchise. Given the presence of MOTU: Revelation, a couple of sources do exist pertaining to Lena Headey's portrayal of the character; interviews and reviews. From some research I've done, although critics from the 1980s don't seem to bring up Meg Foster often when discussing the live-action film, retrospective reviews do somewhat often single her out for praise. The article itself may not show it, but sources and coverage of Evil-Lyn do exist.--
PanagiotisZois (
talk)
18:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Interviews may count as primary, but depending on the other/surrounding writeup may well count as independent RSes contributing to notability.
Jclemens (
talk)
07:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
How can an interview be primary for a fictional character? Were they interviewing Evil-Lyn in character on some in-universe interview show? I would think that only the show itself is a primary source for the show.
BD2412T00:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Merge and Keep. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!19:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge to the character list for now due to lack of sourcing and a clear
WP:ATD. No objection to a spin-out later if enough sources are found to rewrite the article.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
20:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply