Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Tasks

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MainTalkAssessmentParticipantsShowcaseTasksResourcesTemplatesHelpPortal
WikiProject Animation
Information
Archives
1, 2, 3, Index
Threads older than 30 days may
be archived by MiszaBot II.
Departments
Project organization
Task forces
Related projects
Descendant projects
Animation Portal • Changes
Shortcuts

This is the a list of tasks that either need regular attention for WikiProject Animation.

To do list

[edit]

Cleanup listing

[edit]

A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Unreferenced BLPs

[edit]

This is the list of Unreferenced BLPs automatically generated by DASHBot.

There are no unreferenced BLPs tagged by Template:WikiProject Animation.

Requested articles

[edit]
Requested articles
Experimental animation
Films
The King's Beard, Timothy Tweedle the First Christmas Elf, The Return of the Prodigal Parrot [ru]
Television
Cyboars, Louie (animated show), Simsalagrimm, Brainphreak
People
Andrew Kepple, Chasen Kay, Vince Collins, Corin Hardy, Kondoh Akino
Studios
Studio CGI
edit


New articles

[edit]
New articles by topic — New articles (Animation)

The following articles have been identified by InceptionBot as potentially being within the scope of the project, based on the Animation ruleset. It is likely that some of them are false positives; please examine the log if you have any questions.

This page lists recently created Animation-related articles. Remember to nominate the best new articles at Template talk:Did you know so Wikipedia can highlight them on the main page.

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2024-11-09 19:29 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.


Article alerts

[edit]

Articles for deletion

(2 more...)

Proposed deletions

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

(12 more...)

Articles for creation

Deletion discussions

[edit]
To edit this section, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation

Anxiety (Inside Out)

[edit]
Anxiety (Inside Out) (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 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]

James Cawthorn (artist)

[edit]
James Cawthorn (artist) (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)

Unreliably sourced article. A WP:BEFORE search offers little in the way of further sourcing. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article because it was linked to a dozen pages already, had an article in another language, and is the author of The Crystal and the Amulet, which has had an article on the English Wikipedia for years. I also linked to external databases, most of which have longer articles about him than this current stub --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 Cut Hero

[edit]
4 Cut Hero (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)

Failed WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK criteria showing no significant coverage from secondary reliable sources that is independent of the subject other than passing mentions — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and South Korea. – The Grid (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Support nomination rational. There are no sources or reviews of the book by reliable sources. Searched and all I found are book selling websites and unreliable review websites. Mekomo (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I found various sources, including https://www.asiae.co.kr/article/2019050311144057058 https://isplus.com/article/view/isp202304030015 for example; if it is judged insufficient I would suggest a redirect and merge to Lezhin Comics (an article that needs expansion and sourcing) Mushy Yank (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this not a passing mentions? Both are writing about their publisher entry to foreign markets in which 4 Cut Hero is basically written/promoted as part of like "here is some of their products". — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A) my !vote indicates an alternative in case the majority of other users disagree B) "Is a passing mention"? Are passing mentions, you mean? Let's see (rough horrible translation, hope you don't mind)

    #Godzilla-kun (pen name), the author of '4-Cut Hero' serialized in Lezhin Comics, is busy these days. This is because the long-running webtoon that has been serialized for six years since 2014 has recently succeeded in advancing into the US market, which means he has more work to do. On the Lezhin Comics application (app) that services Lezhin Comics comics, 4-Cut Hero is ranked in the top 10 in terms of US sales. Considering that the Lezhin Comics app is highly popular with American readers, 4-Cut Hero is also said to be well-received in the US market.

    (Asiae. I consider this not a passing mention, but maybe I'm wrong)

    '4-Cut Warrior' is a webtoon that began serialization in 2014, with approximately 78 million cumulative views and is currently serviced on 12 platforms in 5 countries. The diverse characters, dense plot, high-quality drawings, and gag codes at the right places, as well as the various elements that have been loved by readers for a long time, have become sufficient cornerstones for the production of an animation. The production was handled by the Chinese platform Bilibili.

    (Isplus, I consider this not a passing mention and it's not, in my opinion, equivalent to basically writ[ing about]/promot[ing] [the subject] as part of like "here is some of their products"
    But again, maybe I'm wrong; still, I am suggesting an ATD. Mushy Yank (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok noted, thanks for sharing your thoughts. However, even though I don't needed translation, IMO it's still passing mentions as 4 Cut Hero isn't the main topic for either reportings and my BEFORE before AfDing this article doesn't really shows otherwise. Regardless, I'm open to the alternative of just partial merging certain content if sourced rather than a full "cut-paste" as IMO it would be out-of-place for Lezhin Comics article. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solo leveling: Unlimited

[edit]
Solo leveling: Unlimited (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)

Insufficient differentiation from parent article Solo Leveling; should be merged into that article. The sources given are also insufficiently reliable and do not prove notability per WP:RS. seefooddiet (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the creator attempted to get this article passed as a draft but was turned down each time. Draft:Solo leveling : Unlimited. Eventually, they went ahead and made it into a full article while skipping draft approval. seefooddiet (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Solo Leveling. No differentiable content for it to deserve its own page so a redirect works well enough,
MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty and the West Chamber

[edit]
Beauty and the West Chamber (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)

Neither the English language article nor its Chinese equivalent have in depth coverage in independent sources. Sources may exist in Chinese but on current showing this title isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a well-known online comic in China, the source is sufficient. Wtf35861887 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I added some sources and updated the content. Wtf35861887 (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but those don’t help. They are just more sites selling or distributing the title. Please see WP:BOOKCRIT. To show notability we need independent sources discussing the work in depth. Mccapra (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. According to the source, 28,029 people rated this webcomic, giving it a score of 9.9. Another large Chinese rating website gave it a score of 9.6. For a recently completed short-to-medium BL themed online comic, this is no small feat.
According to the source link, 5.55 billion people have read this online comic with a niche theme. If this is not well-known, then what does it mean to be "well-known".
Of course, this comic cannot be as famous as a classic work like Shakespeare. Wtf35861887 (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, I recommend not deleting it, but keeping it and waiting for people to improve this entry. Wtf35861887 (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but we have articles about other webcomics that are discussed in independent sources. Has this one been discussed in independent sources? That’s what is missing. Mccapra (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why don’t ACGx and Douban count? ACGx is a company that studies the ACG market and Douban is a rating website where users give voluntary ratings. They will not gain any revenue or benefit in any way. Wtf35861887 (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the content of ACGx’s news articles, ACGx is researching modern Chinese comics, not promoting or touting Beauty and the West Chamber. More than half of the entire article mainly talks about Chinese opera rather than introducing Beauty and the West Chamber. ACGx simply stated that Beauty and the West Chamber is one of the excellent examples of the combination of traditional culture in new entertainment media, and also mentioned Beauty and the West Chamber has some advantages in subject selection. Wtf35861887 (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ACGx talks about the use of traditional culture in modern entertainment media, and by the way studies some manifestations of traditional culture in Beauty and the West Chamber, while many other news columns simply introduce Beauty and the West Chambe or promote Beauty and the West Chambe. These differences It can be easily seen from the text and the writer.
To be sure, there is no news column for promotion and praise in the source link.
I don’t think this article reaches the level that needs to be deleted. It needs improvements and updated content, but it's not worth deleting. Wtf35861887 (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ACGx mentioned in the article that Beauty and the West Chambe had 1.35 billion people watching it when it was serialized for 69 episodes. Isn’t this enough to prove that Beauty and the West Chambe is an online comic with some popularity? This popularity is obviously One of the reasons why Beauty and the West Chambe caught the attention of ACGx.
According to Tencent Animation and Comics, a large comics reading platform, Beauty and the West Chamber's score has increased from 9.0 two or three years ago to 9.9 now, which is almost a perfect score. Beauty and the West Chamber's popularity is obviously on the rise.
Why are you in a hurry to delete the entry? This comic has just been completed...
There is still a lot of information that has not been put here, such as the author's thoughts, readers' discussions, and comments.
This entry is worth keeping. Wtf35861887 (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another new media company specializing in the ACG market, 3wyu, listed Chinese comics in 2019 in their article titled? Comics, comics exhibitions, and stores are all losing money, and American entertainment companies are also exploring business models" In the popularity ranking, Beauty and the West Chamber ranked tenth.
Apparently there are a number of independent sources talking about this. Wtf35861887 (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3wyu, another new media company specializing in the ACG market, listed Chinese comics in 2019 in their article titled "Comics, comics exhibitions, and stores are all losing money, and American entertainment companies are also exploring business models" In the popularity ranking, Beauty and the West Chamber ranked tenth. Wtf35861887 (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chaotic characters

[edit]
List of Chaotic characters (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)

Could not find sources on the characters nor the list as a whole. There is some content that can be merged with Chaotic (TV series), but a lot of it is WP:PLOTSUMMARY. Conyo14 (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Panda Fighter

[edit]
The Little Panda Fighter (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 do not believe this rip-off film is notable enough for inclusion. The article has 7 sources; however, sources 1 and 5 are merely lists of bad rip-off films where it is briefly mentioned, source 2 is an IMDB equivalent, source 4 is an amazon listing, source 6 and 7 are youtube videos about the film, and source 3 is about the studio and doesn't once mention the movie.

This film fails WP:NFILM as I can't find any more reliable sources out there. CoconutOctopus talk 10:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's true it should be deleted because I tried to make another article about another rip off film called Chop Kick Panda and it got denied for creation and when trying to fix the article and resubmitting it, it later got the ability to resubmit it disabled. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason for deletion. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should a Redirect be the path chosen Vídeo Brinquedo#Filmography might be the best target.Mushy Yank (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Mushy Yank's work. WP:SIGCOV states that "it does not need to be the main topic of the source material", and the sources are about cringe-y films, not the movie, but they do discuss it in detail - with WP:NFILM describes as not being a "plot summary with no critical commentary" (these sources do add critical commentary) and WP:SIGCOV describes as ensuring "no original research is needed to extract the content", which is very clearly evident as they describe the both the film's plot, the context in which it is made, and add critical commentary. Concerns are raised by other users about reliability, but, one of the sources is Colliders, which is considered a reliable source per WP:RSN for films [3]. MolecularPilot 22:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, do you consider the following paragraphs, taken from the sources above, non-significant? (It's a real question) From my understanding of significance on WP, they are not passing mentions:

    How does it compare to the original? Take Kung Fu Panda, render it in MS Paint, then take the MS Paint version and render it on an Etch-a-Sketch. We’re not done yet. Put that Etch-a-Sketch version back into MS Paint and color it using the paint bucket tool and…jeez, that still looks way too good. Any way we can do this all on a Commodore 64?The Little Panda Fighter is about a world inhabited by bears that all look like someone punched a jar of Play-Doh in the face. One particularly perverse panda spends an unsettling amount of time in his dank basement, but instead of begging others to put the lotion on the skin, this panda dreams of becoming a ballerina. Unfortunately, he is forced to become a kick boxer (typical panda struggle). Will he find a way to bring these two worlds together? The movie probably cares less than you do. Also, the panda falls down a lot. Because he’s fat. Comedy!

    (MentalFloss)

    The Little Panda Fighter follows the story of a clumsy panda named Pancada, who works at a boxing club and has big aspirations of becoming a professional dancer. After a strange miscommunication error, Pancada accidentally ends up being a combatant at his club's upcoming fight, being mistaken for a legendary panda fighter who challenged the club's champion. Pandaca now must train for his upcoming battle, and finds that his dancing skills may just be helpful for him in the ring.As far as animated rip-off movies go, it's hard to get more blatant and obvious than The Little Panda Fighter, which is attempting to leech off of the success of Dreamworks' Kung Fu Panda. While Kung Fu Panda was filled with exceptional and groundbreaking visuals, fun characters, and exhilarating battle sequences, The Little Panda Fighter features none of these positive aspects. Its minuscule budget resulted in a film with primarily lackluster dialogue sequences and dated animation quality, with a plot that only resembles Kung Fu Panda via having a Panda main character.

    (Collider A)

    A major trend that persisted throughout the 2000s was the abundance of cheap ripoff films that were released at the same time as more popular animated films as an attempt to siphon business from blockbuster titles. While this trend was just as prevalent in live-action as it was in animation, the cheaply animated examples more egregiously show the variance in quality between these poor excuses for films and the actual films they're ripping off. One of the most comically inept examples is The Little Panda Fighter, a blatant ripoff of Kung Fu Pandathat is unabashed in its copying. The Little Panda Fighter is a culmination of all the trends and facets that made these ripoff films both so terrible in execution and abundant and unavoidable in bargain bins of the era. While it's blatant to anyone with eyes just how much the film is using the likeness of Kung Fu Panda, the actual film itself couldn't be any more dissimilar, following a story of a panda who doesn't want to fight, but instead wants to dance. Especially when the original Dreamworks film exists, there's little reason to ever give The Little Panda Fighter the attention it so deeply craves.

    (Collider B)

    The Little Panda Fighter follows. the story of Pancada, a panda who works at a boxing club and has big dreams of becoming a world-famous dancer. After an unfortunate case of mistaken identity, Pancada accidentally gets caught up and is scheduled for an upcoming fight at his boxing club, and begins to train for what will be the fight of his life.It's clear from the get-go that The Little Panda Fighter 's primary purpose and reason for existing is to leech off of and scam unsuspecting viewers who mistook the film for Dreamworks' Kung Fu Panda, released the same year. Although, unlike the masterful animation style of the Dreamworks film, The Little Panda Fighter's cheap animation style leaves much to be desired. The film also features a hilariously strange plot, further amplified by the vocal performances.

    (Collider C)

    This movie could be a “Kung Fu Panda” spin-off about an unknown brother who managed to survive, but was separated from Po. And yet it’s just a trashy uninspired rip-off with a similar plot and lower budget. Besides, the panda on the poster doesn’t seem like a normal animal. It looks more like a host for some crazy fitness show for toddlers. Just kidding..

    (NSTER, Archived)
    I consider significance to be a threshold, and I would tend to think that it is reached here. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (sorry for the late reply, I forgot to add this page to my watch list) - after reviewing the policies at WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV I think the coverage you've provided does count as "significant". Specifically, WP:NFILM says that plot summaries do not count - but these also include critical comments. I think, together, they create significant coverage. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 03:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hood

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

I feel this is a tough AFD to navigate given the murkyness of comics (because comics are comics) the page fails WP:GNG. While Jason Todd is notable, and The Joker are notable, the "Red Hood" isnt. Most coverage of "Red Hood" is either coverage of Jason or the Joker or the Red Hood Gang, not Red Hood. The idea of Red Hood as a Legacy hero isn't really a thing in comics the way Robin or Batgirl is. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why delete? The page clearly has some use. IMHO you could make fairly decent cases for a redirect to Jason Hood or the Joker (is that confirmed in whatever iteration of DC 'continuity' we're on this week? That he was the only version of the dome-head Red Hood?), so the most sensible thing would be a disambiguation-type page that swiftly explains the gist and links to the various appropriate pages. Outright deletion seems just about the worst option, so I'm voting Keep and make more useful through editing. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep WP:SIGCOV here, here, as well as in the Batman: A Visual History I can't access. While I can't be totally certain, I think Red Hood is probably notable and enough WP:BEFORE has not been performed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Comics Encyclopedia source is just a plot summary of his role, and I wouldn't really consider it SIGCOV per Wikipedia:NOTPLOT. The IGN source is similarly just a plot summary of Red Hood's past appearances, and is additionally only talking about Jason Todd's version of the alias, which does not address the nom's concerns of being separately notable from Todd.
    As an aside, how can you be sure the Visual History contains SIGCOV if you can't access it? Mostly just asking out of curiosity more than anything, because at a glance the guide itself seems akin to Comics Encyclopedia in terms of its coverage. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Plot summaries are transformative, and hence valid secondary sources. Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would tend to agree with Jclemens. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not forbid the use of plot summaries, only establishes the article must have some indication of its external importance and significance, somewhere.
    And as I said, I cannot be sure if there is SIGCOV in Visual History, but it's easier to keep and confirm later than to delete and regret it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not forbid the use of plot summaries, but I cite NOTPLOT for a reason. An article needs something beyond plot. Per the policy, works must be discussed "in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those work." So far there haven't been any sources actually demonstrating this, and any that do are focused entirely on the character of Todd, not the alias of Red Hood. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck out my original opinion, and change it to redirect since it is nearly synonymous with Jason Todd at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not clear what's being asked here. Do you want this turned into a disambiguation page? Clearly, something should exist at Red Hood. Obviously, you would prefer it be different than it is now, but what is your end goal and what are the policies and guidelines that justify it? Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a redirect to Jason Todd with a hatnote for Joker. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why have you asked for deletion if you feel it should be a redirect? Have you tried to reach a consensus in the talk page of the article or an associated project page before nominating the article for deletion? Sorry, but this seems like a misuse of the AfD process to achieve something that could be done by normal editing. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jason Todd per nom. All coverage indicates that Red Hood is basically only known for the association the alias has to Todd, and a hatnote can point to Joker for his usage of the alias. The lack of actual sourcing for Red Hood surprises me; if anything comes up, let me know, but as it stands, the coverage is so little that I don't see a need to merge anything to Todd, when all of Todd's plot information covers the necessary Red Hood bits adequately as is. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No action Let a talk page discussion ensue. Nothing is so broken about this process that anything needs to be deleted, non-XfD processes have not been tried, and there's no indication that anything needs to be enforced with administrative tools. Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already at AfD, why rehash the same conversation at the talk page; the nom should have started a conversation on the talk page, but this has already been made. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Shouldn't need admin intervention unless admin intervention is needed.
    2) Shouldn't be mandated unless consensus has failed.
    Two different sides of an issue, but WP:PEREN#Rename AFD indicates the community has rejected AfD as a venue for all discussions. If no deletion is argued, then it's actually a speedy keep criteria. Jclemens (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge Redirect to Jason Todd and maybe add info about why he took up the Red Hood moniker. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Let this page stay. Red Hood was first used as an alias by the person who later became Joker. Then a gang was named after him in "The New 52". If the outcome is merge, I prefer having Red Hood merged to List of DC Comics characters: R and Red Hood Gang redirected to List of teams and organizations in DC Comics. Plus, @Jclemens: is right about the fact that this should've been brought up as a talk page discussion first. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jason Todd per Pokelego999 and others and due to insufficient coverage of this topic in particular, for a standalone article. Arguments about this being the wrong venue seem to thoroughly useless WP:BURO. The article is here now and there's no point dragging it out if consensus can be gotten here. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jason Todd with a hatnote to Joker added there. While the Red Hood name was originally used by the Joker, it has, for a long time now, been associated almost entirely with Jason Todd, making him the primary topic. And I am not really seeing the logic in having information of Jason Todd as the Red Hood in a separate article from our full article on Jason Todd, which also covers him being the Red Hood. Even the sources shown above are describing the history of Jason Todd as a whole, not "The Red Hood" as a separate concept. Since the "In Other Media" section is just a shortened selection of items already present in either the Joker or Jason Todd's own "in other media" articles, the only information here that is not already fully covered on either Jason Todd or The Joker articles is the information on "The Red Hood Gang" which is simply not notable. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Pokelego999. There isn't reliable reception and analysis for this as a separate subject, and so it can't meet WP:PLOT and WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoé Kézako

[edit]
Zoé Kézako (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)

Almost completely unsourced, heavily POV article. BEFORE showed no reviews or news. From what I can find, subject does not meet GNG. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we see a few more opinions and arguments here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by MeTV Toons

[edit]
List of programs broadcast by MeTV Toons (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)

Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability. Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or delete other articles First, note on the reason this article was created. The material in this article was transferred from MeTV Toons, which made the article as noted "too long to comfortably read the main article". This article/list is not any different from others on Wikipedia. It contains references provided by other editors for verification. This article is directly the same as others under the category: Lists_of_television_series_by_network. Please visit this category to confirm. If we limit articles/lists to original programming and not list rerun programs, we will need to delete a lot of articles/lists such as ION or Antenna TV for example. Thus, what do we consider as "notable"?. This is not the only channel that is currently listed on Wikipedia as per quote "Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability." Msw1002 (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I do say about this list article, it does need some cleanup. However, deletion doesn't sound correct. Rivertown (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every television channel that exist doesn't get to list every single program they show. These are shows someone else created for different channels. Only one original program, so no need for a list for just that. Dream Focus 15:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As someone mentioned above, where does it say a list qualifies as notable when it only lists original programs specifically? I can see the concern over a list, especially not referenced. I did not create this list, just moved it out of the main article, which was becoming too long with this list included. The lists such as List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV and others have been on Wikipedia for over a decade with no issues at this point. Just mentioning....
    Msw1002 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see many P&G-based views here. The WP:TV essay says nothing about notability hinging on the originality of the programming, and adherence to GNG wasn't addressed here even once. We also tend to discard WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type votes, exemplified here with the retributive, "Keep or delete other articles". As always, a critical source assessment would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Reliable sources such as ABC News and Variety Magazine covered MeTV's programming when they launched, so it barely passes WP:NLIST.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:50, 7 November 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_Animation/Tasks&oldid=679516692"