Points of interest related to Comics on Wikipedia: History –  Portal –  Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style – To-do

Points of interest related to Animation on Wikipedia: History –  Portal –  Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
( talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation/archive

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

• Webcomics
• Television
• Film
• Anime and manga
• Fictional characters

Ultimate Spider-Man and X-Men

Ultimate Spider-Man and X-Men (  | 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)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Red Storm (webtoon)

Red Storm (webtoon) (  | 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 significant coverage. The little commentary I found is in this CBR listicle, others are just plot summary and mention in other listicles. Neocorelight ( Talk) 02:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics. Neocorelight ( Talk) 02:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: could there be Korean sources we're missing? Not to say it might not be non-notable. Mrfoogles ( talk) 08:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Who knows? Maybe you can find them? I can't read Korean. Neocorelight ( Talk) 09:32, 8 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.

That said, I'm leaning delete. I'm a Korean speaker and didn't find much convincing sigcov. 211.43.120.242 ( talk) 07:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• 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:

• gameca.com, three paragraphs as part of a list.
• techm.kr, three paragraphs as part of a list.
• news.nate.com, listed entry, basically nothing.
• news.nate.com, listed entry, basically nothing.
• mk.co.kr, listed entry, basically nothing.
• yna.co.kr, listed entry, basically nothing.
• chosun.com, author quote, basically nothing.
• 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

  or a redirect to Kakao [2], the publisher? Oaktree b ( talk) 00:54, 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

• With this source I would probably support an article on the author, but it doesn't help much for this specific work. A redirect to a listing at Kakao Webtoon would be appropriate, yes. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 06:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hoze Houndz

Hoze Houndz (  | 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. First AfD ended in no consensus DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Canada. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Family_Channel#Animated_series_7 - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Batboat

Batboat (  | 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 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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. 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
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Video games, and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 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. MK at 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... Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep While the article is poorly written, the subject appears notable and received significant coverage in several independent books: Batman's Arsenal, Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight, Slashfilm(?) I think people underestimate how entrenched Batman is in popular culture. Due to the problems being seemingly WP:SURMOUNTABLE, refusal to improve an article is not a viable deletion argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:04, 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

• Comment: There's a page of text about the development and construction of the '66 series' Batboat in Batman: A Celebration of the Classic TV Series, a non-fiction non-primary reference that I added to the article. Toughpigs ( talk) 20:23, 6 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

• Keep or merge with the technology section at Batman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • PRESERVE isn't an actual notability rationale. You need a rationale for preserving for it to be a valid stance. Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 7 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

• Redirect to Batman#Technology, where a reference to the Batboat exists referencing it as a variation of the Batmobile. There's no need for this non-notable subject to have a separate article, especially since there is no significant coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 01:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I support this option if the article is not to be outright deleted. Softlavender ( talk) 22:43, 8 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

  I feel it's certainly possible (Since at the bare minimum it meets LISTN with Batarang, Batsuit, Batmobile, Bat-Signal, and Batman's utility belt having articles, though I'm admittedly on the notability of some o these) but it will need more than the one book source to hold it up as an entire subject to justify the split off Batman, especially since most of these have articles already have them Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 20:59, 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

Kicko & Super Speedo

Kicko & Super Speedo (  | 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. 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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Sony_YAY!#Former_programming - Not opposed to Keep, see User:Eastmain's comment during 1st Afd. My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC) (the tag (fact that the page) (edited for clarity) "It has "additional citations needed for verification" tag, even since May 2023, indicates more a cleanup issue than a notability one). reply
• Redirect to Green_Gold_Animations#Television. RangersRus ( talk) 14:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to Green Gold Animations? Or to List of programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:36, 28 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I'd say redirect it to List of programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!. M S Hassan ( talk) 13:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Evil-Lyn

Evil-Lyn (  | 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)

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 14:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 14:53, 20 June 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

  Sorry, this just me; but its only a 2 low quality situational Valnet sources [3] [4] in the article + this source from before and for me it isn't enough yet for GNG, due to the source quality. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 20:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Per Wikipedia:VALNET, which is also cited at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Valnet sources do not contribute to notability in discussions such as these. As all of these are VALNET, there is no notability displayed right now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 20:26, 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

  I fixed the MTV link so it works. https://www.mtv.com/news/jat6pt/masters-of-the-universe-classics-faceless-one-review Each to search for the title of something and the name of the source to find it. Dream Focus 09:20, 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

• Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. I don't have the time to go through and search for sources myself to form an opinion on notability, but this is the obvious WP:Alternative to deletion which preserves the article in the history for possible future use and I am pretty sure something from here can improve the corresponding section at the target. Daranios ( talk) 15:07, 21 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

  Hey, I don't know what I should respond to this. This looks like WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument somehow. Interview sources are primary and does not help GNG; same with Valnet sources. 🍕 Boneless Pizza!🍕 ( 🔔) 00:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Per above, interviews count as primary. Additionally, could you please cite some of these sources you're referring to? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 00:56, 22 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. BD2412 T 00:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the claims of @ Jclemens: and @ PanagiotisZois:. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 23:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters as stated by user:Daranios. Significant coverage only comes from CBR, a questionable source according to WP:VALNET, and the wikis for He-Man MOTU, but these are tertiary sources that either do not cite references or just makes circular references to articles within that wiki. Not notable for a separate article at this time. Prof.PMarini ( talk) 14:13, 28 June 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge the few sourced sentences to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Evil-Lyn, which already seems pretty balanced. Real-world info on animated characters will be quite hard to come by, so better develop this in the character list until it potentially hits WP:SPINOUT quality. – sgeureka ^{t• c} 10:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The sourcing is just about sufficient. Cortador ( talk) 11:02, 5 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
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse ( talk) 22:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Templates for discussion