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

The Riddler: Secrets in the Dark

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

I can't find anything on this besides casting announcements which I don't think count for notability as a routine sort of source. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as an WP:ATD this could be merged or redirected to Batman Unburied. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Palmer (actor)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, only single source cited. Absolutiva (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nomination rationale. Google search result provides no indication of notability of this actor. He fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Farnsworth

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

This is not an AfD i want to do. I absolutely love Futurama and it was one of my favorite comedy cartoons, but unfortunately, this character does not pass WP:GNG. Of the eight sources, none are independent and are only passing mentions, some don't even discuss him, at all. I tried doing a WP:BEFORE and i can't find anything that talks about him.

Again, i didn't want to do this, but i have to, there is no turning back from what i am doing, so i am doing the right thing to nominate this for AfD. Toby2023 (talk) 05:02, 17 November 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. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One example of a secondary source which does indeed talk about the character is "Catastrophic Future(s)", which on pp. 85-86 has significant analysis of the character and his role. A little less serious, The Mad Scientist Hall of Fame has a multi-page chapter on Farnsworth. Daranios (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also love Futurama. Running my usual source check: Found one on ScreenRant to back up the family tree. My attempts to search on Google Scholar have been jammed by the existence of real scholar Charles Hubert Farnsworth. Trying again with "Professor Farnsworth" "Futurama" and getting a good number of hits: [1]. I believe enough sourcing exists to establish notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Okay, this Law Review article looks like it covers the Professor's adventures particularly. I put it as a source in the article because the abstract covers the basic facts of who Farnsworth is, but anyone who can get through that paywall could use it more extensively: Justin S. Wales. "FUTURLAWMA: 21st Century Solutions to 31st Century Problems". U. Miami L. Rev. (Abstract). 87. Retrieved November 17, 2024. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Okay, I have now added a total of four sources, three of them scholarly works that focus on this character specifically. There are more at the link above. I would like for someone to access the full text of the two that are paywalled, but for now, I have used them to support information freely visible in their abstracts. The third scholarly work is available in full text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @Darkfrog24:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found. Daranios (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Darkfrog24's sources. Toughpigs (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources which show SIGCOV and notability.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the recently found and added sources. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of submissions for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature

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

The topic for this list is unencyclopedic. While it is possible to find a list of submitted films by year, this is trivial information – there is a major difference between being nominated (or even shortlisted) and merely being eligible. (As a comparison, would we allow a list of every Best Picture–eligible film? I suspect not even though sources exist.) See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Film, and Comics and animation. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's not indiscriminate; the inclusion criterion is clear. It's not trivial; it's rather an important topic and the lead section is clear about what it is. It's not unsourced. Saying it's unencyclopaedic seems to be a personal view. I say it's encyclopaedic because it's part of the detailed history of animation and animated film awards and it's manageable. -Mushy Yank. 10:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify at least the first point, WP:INDISCRIMINATE states that merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While there is a clear selection criteria, that criteria is broad and conveys minimal significance. That's why I find the list indiscriminate and not suitable for inclusion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also per WP:MILL and WP:NOTNEWS. There's essentially no bar for submitting eligible films, and studios generally will just submit stuff even if they have no realistic chance of winning (or even being nominated) whatsoever. While lists of eventual nominees are almost surely of sufficient notability (and noteworthiness), lists of submissions are not. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking at Category:Academy Awards lists, I'd recommend nominating other such submission lists for the same reasons. Of particular note are those two not-so-little subcats at the top of foreign-language film submissions, which break down even further by type. There are about an extra 200 lists in those that could stand to be mass nominated for deletion. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Why did you twice remove the AfD template from the page?~~ ~~And saying it is not nominated when you just voted here is not evidently consistent...~~.. -Mushy Yank. 20:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC); edited 21:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template was removed from List of submissions for the Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film, which has not been mentioned anywhere in this deletion discussion up to this point. It would be out of procedure to add that article to this nomination after the discussion opened. I will remove the template from that page shortly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! My bad! My apologies, 35.139.154.158! You were right and I blindly trusted the link. sorry. But who added it to the page in the first place and why??-Mushy Yank. 21:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Espngeek, why did you add it there?? -Mushy Yank. 21:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the Animated Feature is about to be deleted, why not the Animated Short Film? Espngeek (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, feel free to nominate it (it might look as if you were trying to make a point, given your !vote below, but it’s your call). Still, you had added the link formatted by RunningTiger123 for this discussion to a page that was not nominated for deletion and that was quite confusing (even disruptive, I must be honest with you)! You cannot do that, I’m afraid and ”merge submissions” (bundle nominations) as you suggest below would have been possible if the nominator had wished to do so but it is not the case and in tems of procedure and good practices, your copy-paste of the template was a very bad idea. Not possible anymore with this page then. Thank you! -Mushy Yank. 21:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What Oscar-related list do you consider important? Espngeek (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not this one, clearly, since it's up for nomination. Do you have an actual rationale behind your keep !vote, preferably addressing the concerns that have been raised by the nomimator and by me? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're asking me, I would consider lists such as the nominees at Academy Award for Best Animated Feature or the submissions in Category:Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award submissions by country suitable for inclusion. Those films have been specifically selected for further recognition, which gives them more significance than merely checking the boxes to be eligible does. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should I merge the submissions onto Best Animated Feature article? Espngeek (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the issue is not whether or not this has standalone notability; the issue is that the information is so trivial that it's not worth mentioning anywhere as a matter of editorial discretion, whether that's in a standalone list or in another article/list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this one so trivial? Espngeek (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Espngeek in short, no (see above). You would have to initiate another AfD but can I suggest you wait for this one to be closed so that we know what others think? Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 21:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The argumment used could also be used to delete the 97 pages of the international feature films submissions, since those films were also selected for further recognition from AMPAS, and most of the countries "generally will just submit stuff even if they have no realistic chance of winning". This list is vital to map the competition, especially now that AMPAS is even more international than ever. Martineden83 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be clear – I am not arguing to delete the international feature film lists in my comment you linked. When I said "selected for further recognition", I meant that a party separate from the filmmakers (whether AMPAS or some other industry group) had picked it, instead of the filmmakers submitting it. That is a major difference between those lists and this one. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, the International submissions are fine, yet the Animated Feature subs are unencyclopedic and questionably trivial? Espngeek (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree that the international films are equivalent – those submissions were formally selected by each country's film committee, while in this list, producers can self-nominate whatever animated films they made. Reywas92^Talk 16:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if producers were capable of "self-nominate" their own movies (which they are not, the submitted films are shortlisted only after reaching the category rules), the annual list is gennerally small (last year it barely had 30 films) and does not include all animated features released in the year. Martineden83 (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A note on terminology since you said "shortlisted" – these are not shortlisted submissions like in other categories (example). A more apt comparison would be to compare this list to the list of films eligible for Best Picture. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see there's been disagreement about the international lists being in the same boat as this one. I'm happy to concede that point, but it doesn't really change my view about this particular list. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deathstroke (Marvel Comics)

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

The DC Comics version is way more notable than this one. He isn't notable at all, the article has no publication history and only has one section, in which it says he fought and was defeated by Spider-Woman. He only has two sources, one is a list of supervillains, and another a dead link of the comic issue itself. His article is a complete mess. Toby2023 (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D. The encyclopedia entry by Rovin seems like a descent enough source, but I see no reason we couldn't cover the character in a list.4meter4 (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Shellwood (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per 4meter4. BOZ (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is quite literally no information that is mergeable here beyond a mention of the character existing, and the character is so obscure (A search yields only two actual appearances in the several decades of Marvel history, with one of them being incredibly minor) that he doesn't even warrant a mention. Not every one-off needs to be accounted for on the character list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pokelego999 - Utterly non-notable one-shot character. The character is a complete failure of the WP:GNG and is so completely minor that even including him on a character list would be ascribing more notability to him than actually exists. As stated above, not every single minor comic character that ever existed needs to be included in a character list, and this one is a very good example of one that should not. Rorshacma (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pokelego999; existence does not equal notability, enough for a list. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pokelego999. There are sources that provide WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs at best. I would support a redirect per WP:ATD, if editors can agree on a suitable target. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and the suggestion of @4meter4:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sven (Voltron)

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

Unfortunately, as i am a Voltron fan myself, this character fails WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE found nothing, it only talks about the shows he is from. This is something i didn't want to do, but i have to nominate it. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same issues as him.:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Comics and animation, and Anime and manga. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep for The Rise of Voltron as it is an episode and not a character and does not belong in this bundled nomination. It should be nominated separately. Merge all others to List of Voltron characters per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is an episode, but i still included this because it is Voltron after all. It doesn't pass WP:GNG. Toby2023 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but it's best to bundle nominations where the outcomes have a shared ending. In general, the bundling process is best avoided when articles are not very close in design. A charcter page is very different then a television episode page.4meter4 (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close WP:NPASR, but make sure that WP:BUNDLE is scrupulously followed per the above. If not, this is more likely than not going to end up as a train wreck. Better to restart clean with separate noms for characters and episode(s) rather than hoping it doesn't go off the rails. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into List of Voltron characters besides The Rise of Voltron which should be deleted. Cynical attempts to cite WP:TRAINWRECK don't work unless it has actually become a trainwreck, and forcing it to become one doesn't count. Bundled nominations are perfectly within the rules as long as they make sense, though I agree the episode ought to have been nominated separately as it is not related. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:03, 22 November 2024 (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 delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where The Robots Grow

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

You know how sometimes it's hard to tell if a subject is barely notable and low profile (for now, anyways) or not notable at all? That's the problem with this article. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is absolutely no better than the hundreds of Vyond/GoAnimate grounding video or MS Paint masterpiece articles that have hit the AfD/speedy bin over the years, except an adult is proud of typing in a few things into a box and calling it a movie. At least you can say children are more creative than this (I tried to watch it but it made me ill from the uncanny valley framerate). Nate • (chatter)
Comment: There's a full-length Forbes article about the film. I'm not ready to vote Keep yet, but that's a good start. Toughpigs (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Content written by Forbes contributors is deemed generally unreliable (WP:FORBESCON), so that particular article can't be used for establishing notability. toweli (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Being the first AI generated animated film seems like an important milestone. It looks like the film was created more as a way to show what the production company can do as opposed to releasing a real film. More coverage may emerge over the next week or two to prove WP:SIGCOV. I say move it to draft and require that it go through draft review before coming back to mainspace. If better sources don't emerge it will time out in draft.4meter4 (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 I thought of that, but this is a situation where a draft was technically objected to. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the advantage of an WP:ATD at AFD. We can force an article to undergo a draft review.4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 My thought exactly.

Deletion, redirect, draftify, significant improvement...anything other than "the article existing as is" is good, to be honest. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too soon - this film is only a month old. Short announcements pop up in AI/SciFi informal web sites, but that's all. IF (big if?) this eventually becomes a film that has had an impact, an article can be created then. I don't even think there is enough here to warrant draftify. Lamona (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The film doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. The only usable source is the one from Deadline, which isn't enough on its own to pass notability guidelines. As far as the claim of it being the first AI assisted film goes, there are two issues with this. The first is that this is only going to be noteworthy if it's covered in-depth by independent, secondary reliable sources. The second is that well, we can't guarantee that this is actually the first AI animated film. A search for the term "first AI animated film" brings up more films than Where the Robots Grow (WTRG) - I found people making the same claim for this film and this one, as well as this cartoon series for example. I do see a lot of info for WTRG, but this could be a result of the company being fairly liberal with their marketing campaign. Basically, we can't guarantee that this is the first one so we can't use that as a sign of notability - especially as there are people out there who have made the same claim and at an earlier point in time than the production company for WTRG. It's why coverage is so important and why even with an abundance of coverage we would have to specifically state that the film "claims to be the first AI animated film".

If someone wants to draftify this in their userspace, that's fine, but at this point in time the film just doesn't pass notability guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:20, 20 November 2024 (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.

Anxiety (Inside Out)

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

This article recently sprung up, but not in a good way. I find Joy more notable to have an article, but Anxiety doesn't. She currently fails WP:GNG and doesn't have much to say. She is a fairly new character, i would suggest a redirect to either Inside Out (franchise) or Inside Out 2. Toby2023 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the sources already cited in the article establish notability, especially Berlatsky, Noah (2024-06-14). "Opinion: Why Anxiety from 'Inside Out 2' is such a relatable character to me". CNN.McYeee (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Comics and animation, and Disney. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Inside Out 2. The article does not have enough content to warrant a new page. Just because sources exist does not mean this page is needed. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either of the two articles mentioned by the nominator. It lacks notability as some of the references are sort of a review of the movie instead of a special feature about the character. — Mister Banker (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the film, I don't see SIGCOV for the character yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean merge [2] and [3] give better analysis towards the character, but I cannot discern between the analysis of the character and Riley/whole movie, so these more up to interpretation, therefore I'm a weak/lean !merge. I think this article can exist with more analysis and I'll change my !vote if more comes in. Conyo14 (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there was a discussion already about this see Talk:Inside Out 2/Archive 1#Create your own article for Anxiety where a user was trying get someone else to make them the article, I replied I was busy on the box office records by inside out 2 draft but they keep on asking someone to make it for them i originally said I would look into it when I get the time but I think other characters (for example Sadness) probably is more noteworthy so I created a draft for that user to work on the draft currently here Draft:Anxiety (Inside Out) Fanoflionking3 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fanoflionking3: I was the one who made that discussion a few months ago, but I was not the one who created the article. The real author is @MrKaraRocks:, I was interested in creating it months ago but as time passed (and you didn't finish the other work) I asked for the interest. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Inside Out 2 article, there is no image of Anxiety from Inside Out 2 on this article. 73.216.182.68 (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is no image doesn't mean it meets WP:GNG. What matters is the sources that meet GNG, not the images. Toby2023 (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I came to tell you that I am making improvements to the article so that at least it will not be deleted. Now I want to ask @Toby2023: what he thinks about the corrections I am making. I look forward to everyone's answers and help. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can do so, i would like to see you try, if you can do a good job, we can close it as a keep. Toby2023 (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about notability, something that cannot be changed by improvements to the article, only demonstration of sources. If you have found new reliable sources, you should share them here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: These are the sources I have consulted [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] and they are reliable. I will see if I can expand the article further to avoid it being deleted. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Zero sigcov. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:43, 22 November 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]

Comics and animation proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Templates for discussion