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: 2025-03-03 19:26 (UTC)

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


Article alerts

[edit]

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(17 more...)

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

(11 more...)

Articles for creation

(9 more...)

Deletion discussions

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

Roark family

[edit]
Roark family (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)

Unreferenced plot summary and nothing but. Clearly fails WP:GNG (as well as WP:V). Prodded by me, prod endorsed by User:Bearian but removed by User:Mushy Yank who asked for a redirect (without proposing a target) or AfD - so here we go. We could redirect this to Sin City, I guess, but google search suggests there are other possible candidates - there was a Roark family in Godfather franchise, for example ([1]), and there are real-world families of that name that could be notable (ex. [2] one has collections in a university), so a disambig might be needed at some point. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. I think an article could be made for the subject, but as is, with the lack of adequate sourcing, it should be redone from the ground up. Madeleine (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't really see WP:SIGCOV for this, and it might even fail WP:V. There is no mention of them at List of Sin City characters, but that would be the place to add them if coverage is found. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Death of Film

[edit]
The Death of Film (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)

Ño evidence of notability for this self-published experiment. Fram (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Flash (1990 film)

[edit]
The Flash (1990 film) (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)

Blatant WP:CONTENTFORK of a rejected draft Draft:The Flash (1990 film) which is for a film that does not actually exist on its own, but is rather a physical media release of the pilot episode of The Flash (1990 TV series), which was created by a since blocked user bypassing the AfC system. This topic is not notable on its own and the release of it on physical media does not warrant a separate article or the distinction of being a different film when it is not. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -This is just the 2 hour pilot for The Flash (1990 TV series) and has no independent notability. The title with a disambiguator of "1990 film" is rather misleading as this is a pilot episode and not a film so I do not support redirection. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Draft:The Flash (1990 film): or Keep and merge the draft into the page. Coverage seems to be sufficient to meet the requirements for notability. -Mushy Yank. 18:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're claiming Coverage seems to be sufficient to meet the requirements for notability. Can you point out that coverage? The references provided in the article are about the TV series, and not this "movie". Even the claim of this being edited to a 93 minute VHS release is not substatntiated by the provided reference as it states There were three “movies” — multiple episodes cut to feature length and released on home video — that came out on VHS so it isn't even clear that this pilot episode was released as a movie rather than repackaging and cutting multiple epsiodes to make a "movie". -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See below. The coverage is already in the main article and a redirect can address the issue. -Mushy Yank. 18:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The "AfC system" is not mandatory. -Mushy Yank. 18:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a subject already rejected at AfC because it did not meet notability, and then this was created to bypass that, thus ignoring that it did not meet notability. This is not even a new topic, as it is just the series' pilot episode released on Blu-ray as if it were a movie, when it is not. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. (Even if it's a pilot dressed as a film, that commercial ruse was not the deed of the page creator.) Redirect to The Flash (1990 TV series)#Home media, where it is covered, then. -Mushy Yank. 18:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I still believe this DAB is misleading as it implies a film exists from 1990 when that is not true. A more appropriate and accurate DAB would be "The Flash (1990 TV pilot)". Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this is why I feel like redirecting in this case isn't useful. Additionally, while this concern is tangential, I think there's a non zero chance the creator could reverse the redirection via sock and I feel like it's better to just delete the history and cut off that potential for disruption. And as I said below, I'm not sure this would be a good redirect, but also I don't think we need to quibble over that too much. There seems to be consensus to delete this regardless. If another editor in good standing does feel the need to redirect the title after the AfD is closed, then that'd be perfectly fine. Edit: My opinion has changed and my vote has been revised accordingly. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect names do not have to be fully accurate. We even have the rcat Template:R from incorrect name. Redirects need to be plausible search terms, and if someone has a misconception about a topic which is reflected in their search query, that will be corrected upon their arrival to the target article, where they will be able to learn how the topic is really defined. —Alalch E. 05:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The creator who published the draft has been observed gaming/brute-forcing the AfC system and has not demonstrated adequate understanding of notability and other standards for articles despite being informed multiple times, so while it is true that AfC is not mandatory, the publication of this draft in this context is a case of WP:IDHT. Trailblazer has been trying to correct the user for a while, even giving input on the suitability of this specific creation, and is understandably frustrated at having been ignored. That's a separate issue of course, but I just thought I'd try and clarify. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That was helpful. (See my comments above.) -Mushy Yank. 18:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy speedily delete redirect to The Flash (1990 TV series)#Home media. The sources do not actually cover the pilot as a distinct entity, and certainly do not cover the pilot as "The Flash: The Movie". Each of them are repeatedly WP:REFBOMBed through the article to give the superficial appearance of sourcing, but none of them actually support the view that the article takes of the "film". When I saw this article as a draft, I tried to look up the "film", and, finding nothing substantive other than sources about the 1990 TV series, genuinely wondered if perhaps the draft was a hoax, until this marketing strategy was explained to the creator at Draft talk:The Flash (1990 film) by nom.
    This is obviously a WP:POVFORK from someone who insists on the view of the pilot and the "film" as two distinct entities. There is no substantive sourcing available to support this view, and as such this article will likely only serve to confuse readers. Given the lack of significant coverage of even the marketing of the pilot as a film, I'm not sure this title is even a useful redirect. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: Alalch's points have changed my mind with regards to redirecting the article. I now support redirection. However, the redirect should be watched by editors after the discussion is closed so that any further disruption by the creator can be responded to promptly, if it should occur (hopefully it does not). silviaASH (inquire within) 09:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I had originally marked this for CSD A10 but it was rejected, thus, I have taken it here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Understandably so: a redirect is plausible and the page could have been considered a split. -Mushy Yank. 19:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources on the page do not really cover the crucial points, indeed. But some existing sources do (see above (Draft/Main article), for example). And if this "film" is not a notable entity but only notable as part of something else, a redirect should be considered (as a section [repeated in the Draft] covers the production of this in the main article). GBooks shows a lot of results to verify the release and content but try to search with the titles of parts II and III as this one has a very generic title. Anyway, there is no reason to speedy-delete this, as far as I can see. -Mushy Yank. 19:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salted rd; see below Even thinking of it as a pilot episode as it should be, this is a poor recap and framing of a standard episode of television as a 'movie' which outside one 90s VHS tape that appropriately existed to introduce the show to video store renters (and which other generations have wrongly twisted into some campaign to convert it to a theatrical franchise when that was never intended), has otherwise been appropriately marketed as just another episode in other releases of the series as it should be. Nathannah • 📮 23:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no sources actually cover this subject enough to warrant a standalone article, it's home to just unrelated and irrelevant content. BarntToust 03:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Flash (1990 TV series)#Home media. "The Flash (1990 film)" is a plausible search term. Agree with all the deletes. However, it was stated above that there is a non zero chance the creator could reverse the redirection via sock. On principle I reject this reason not to employ an otherwise valid ATD. We have NPP, page protection, an ability to block socks, etc.—Alalch E. 05:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking salted redirect but wasn't sure anyone would agree with that, so I'm very happy to support this so that it's clear what it actually is to the reader. 21:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC) Nathannah • 📮 21:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that redirection makes the most logical sense should deletion not be agreed upon. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Flash (1990 TV series)#Home media. No opposed to Delete. No notability for standalone article. RangersRus (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omens Studios

[edit]
Omens Studios (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)

Recently drafted through AFC and declined a month ago for not meeting notability requirements - published anyway without AFC approval. Loads of WP:PUFFERY. Evidently fails WP:NOTADVERT. LR.127 (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Hammer

[edit]
Justine Hammer (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)

Entirely in universe stuff. Redirection keeps getting reverted so to AfD we go. I think this was originally a redirect to Crimson Cowl but then the content there got taken off there and put here? I'm confused but this article as is does not pass NFICTION or GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belasco (cartoonist)

[edit]
Belasco (cartoonist) (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)

Does not appear in any RS, may not be notable PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belasco is one of the few openly black, gay erotic artists. Erotic artists are often neglected, compared to non-erotic artists. I think those characteristics are enough to deserve an entry in Wikipedia.
That being said, Belasco has also been published in Meatmen (comics), a very important gay anthology of its time. Another reason to keep this article.
If that helps, Belasco has a current and updated Patreon page at [5]https://www.patreon.com/BelascoArts Frpe01 (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm allowed to post again on the same subject.
A few more sources about Belasco's work:
The site for The Advocate (magazine) has a page, https://www.advocate.com/art/2021/8/25/miguel-angel-reyes-sketches-sexiest-men-world#rebelltitem1, for a 2021 online gallery including examples of Belasco's work.
The Advocate (magazine) also presented a 2013 show that includes Belasco's work at https://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/art/2013/07/11/galleries-sexyblack
The page on the aforementioned gallery's official site is at https://antebellumgallery.blogspot.com/2013/07/sexyblack-opens-july-12th-antebellum.html Frpe01 (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Szwimer

[edit]
Jason Szwimer (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)

Coverage is limited. A few major publications wrote about his podcast, but all around the same time when it first launched so it's basically all advertisements and not particularly substantial. His name also comes up in coverage of the end of Arthur because it was announced in an episode of the podcast, but none of the coverage is focused on him or the podcast. NACTOR asks for "significant roles in multiple notable [projects]" (emphasis mine), and it seems to me that he only has one. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spy Pictures

[edit]
Spy Pictures (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)

lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability, making it unsuitable for inclusion per Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Edit.pdf (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kori King

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

Fails GNG. Can't find in-depth coverage of this person; all coverage seems to be about the season of a TV show that they're on. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She is quite literally still airing on the show, the article is obviously going to expand more until the show stops airing or she is eliminated. In addition, she is a well-rounded performer who has a lot more to offer than simply her run on a television show. There is no reason to delete this article.
The nomination stems from a person whose name is a wikipedia page with less content than the Kori King page... so... maybe just maybe this stems from a negatively minded conservative and not a real care towards Wikipedia guidelines. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:F983:1BB7:F09E:CFA1 (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh??? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're seriously going to try to make us believe that this article -https://ergngevd.top/wiki/Zanahary- (which I am POSITIVE garners less views than Kori-Acacia-Arrietty INDIVIDUALLY) which contains a grand total of 5 sentences, 1 quote (with no references?!) and 6 references is totally fine and worthy of being the inspiration for your editor name. Yet your in-depth targeting of queer culture is valid?
Huh??? 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's lay off on the character attacks; there is no reason to assume User:Zanahary has a negative bias. Would a "negatively-minded" person be contributing to articles like Mpreg and Transgender history? Just because you do not agree with their rationale does not mean you should belittle them. If anything, we should assume the user cares about the subject matter enough to be editing. Doughbo (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My initial comment contained a theory. These are not character attacks. The Zanahary article contains 5 sentences and 1 quote (without references) with a total of 6 references underneath them.
This user has been targeting drag queen pages for deletion which is a point blank fact. Why would I assume this user cares about the subject matter when they are attempting to delete pages about queens? 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also the edits can be summarized as eliminating the words *According to* and adding the terms *interprets [...] as* within the portion about the movie Alien for MPreg. For Transgender History the user added and . Much wow!
I have faith in the fact that drag queens deserve their Wikipedia pages because they are famous regardless of the perspective of 1 editor. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so... maybe just maybe this stems from a negatively minded conservative and not a real care towards Wikipedia guidelines is an attack (by saying that they are WP:POVPUSHING), and even if it was just a theory, Casting aspersions is still considered a form of personal attack, and is thus prohibited on Wikipedia. I'm failing to see where you have rebutted they're actual points (that there's no coverage outside the show), instead simply repeating WP:ATAs like "they are famous" or the idea they'll be more notable in the future. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I apologize for my theory being considered a personal attack.
For my information, how is this not POVPUSHING? The editor has targeted 3 currently popular drag queens' pages within a short amount of time. We're supposed to just assume that this is a jolly coincidence in this political climate? Love that..
WP:ENT should be sufficient here. No one from the Great British Bake-Off or Survivor went on to have tours and garner international success (from my knowledge, congratulations if anyone did honestly I'd hope they have their own Wikipedia page as it would be well deserved in the event this did occur).
Does their youtube channel with 1.5M views and counting, not count? Does their tiktok with a current figure of over 10M likes not count? This is a page for a famous entertainer, how is they are famous not a point of contention for the page to be maintained?
I don't care if I'm booted off of Wikipedia. I do care that there is an unfair amount of hate being sent towards a marginalized population, which is now affecting the standing of their wikipedia pages. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has targeted 3 currently popular drag queens' pages within a short amount of time. We're supposed to just assume that this is a jolly coincidence until you have any sort of evidence, yes you are supposed to Assume good faith. It is not at all strange for somebody to notice a content area that has slipped through the cracks (so to speak) and nominate them for a wider (policy based) discussion. I seem to remember a similar "outcry" when somebody got around to applying policy based standards to Tolkien or wrestling articles.

As to your actual points: 1) You've failed to demonstrate how either point of WP:ENT is met (they haven't had roles in multiple Notable works and haven't, as far as I can see, made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment; something that would be demonstrated though sources saying so). 2) Does their youtube channel with 1.5M views and counting, not count? No, see WP:BIGNUMBER (and also maybe WP:YOUTUBER) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added several references to the article, a few of which even use the subject's name in the headline. Even if this entry were redirected now, we'd just be kicking the can down the road and the article would be recreated in a few weeks. Almost every single contestant who has appeared on RuPaul's Drag Race has a standalone entry because being cast practically guarantees notability. Kori King has already appeared on two independently notable TV series and will almost certainly be on Whatcha Packin' and Hey Qween! in the next few weeks. Combine this with additional press to be released in the coming weeks and beyond. Let's avoid the unnecessary redirect and encourage article expansion/improvement. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Three of these articles are coverage of Kori King, as opposed to articles which make mention of her in their coverage of other topics (Boston drag and RuPaul's Drag Race). Two are local news from Boston; one is an interview. An interview cannot establish notability, and neither of the Boston pieces are in-depth at all. She may meet notability soon, so this article can be moved to draftspace until she does. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews can absolutely establish notability, per WP:Interviews#Notability. The question is whether the source is "marginal and only barely more than self published." Under this framework, the articles by Entertainment Weekly and Out should be considered valid supplementary material. Doughbo (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep the article per WP:ENT but remove the snippet about the local show. The citation points to an event posting, not an article, which is not notable. Furthermore, there is no point in listing local appearances as drag queens will headline dozens of these a year; it is not newsworthy. No need to make useless additions to appease a critic. Doughbo (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article does meet WP:GNG with numerous independent sources detailing her career as a drag queen prior and during her current appearance on RuPaul's Drag Race. The article cites, Entertainment Weekly, The Boston Globe, Out, and Queerty as independent sources that detail her performances in the Boston drag scene and as a reality television contestant. Every other contestant from Season 17 of RuPaul's Drag Race has a Wikipedia page, establishing a precedent that would make it unusual to delete this page. 70.30.55.29 (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are all these voters with no understanding of notability policy getting this "unusual" verbiage? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons listed here and my other statements on this page Flubberpuff (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree that this subject meets notability guidelines. There are plenty of sources. This seems to be a page that is in the process of being built. Once the page edits plateau, then we can talk about long-term notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravel for breakfast (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This AFD has been talked about on multiple subreddits ([6], [7]) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to RuPaul's Drag Race season 17, as the only sources I'm seeing are about that season's cast being revealed or events during that season. If the page creator, user:Gravel for breakfast or anybody else wants this draftified until such sources appear, I would be open to that too. But we don't keep article's on the changes that sources will surely appear at some point in the future (see WP:CRYSTAL and WP:ATA#CRYSTAL). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, but looking back at contestants from previous seasons at random, every one of them has a BLP wiki page. Many of those have less info than Kori King has now. See Joey_Jay_(drag_queen) for example. It seems out of place to me to zero in on this page for deletion. If this is the standard for deletion, we have a lot of work to do to go back and delete all the drag race contestant pages with this amount (or less) of information and sourcing.Gravel for breakfast (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really not a policy-based argument, and if Joey Jay doesn’t meet GNG either, I’ll nominate his page for deletion, too. In fact, if you know he doesn’t, you should go ahead and do it yourself. That a topic area is bloated with articles for non-notable subjects (and I’m not saying RPDR is—but that’s the argument you’re making here) is neither remarkable nor reason to ignore or relax notability requirements. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Being cast on Rupaul's Drag Race essentially guarantees notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. As a multiple-emmy winning, internationally airing and supported television show with millions of fans per episode.
    The fact that you individually may not be entertained, does not take away from that. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Future notability, probably. But not yet. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And what precisely makes you believe that she is not yet notable based on this, when it has historically been more than sufficient for every single queen of every single previous season?
    She has a popular youtube channel with currently over 1.5M views.. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because time advances such that unrealized effects of present phenomena have not yet occurred. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What a beautiful series of words that do not in any way negate the fact that Kori King is currently a notorious figure for her popular online presence paired with her currently competing on a large-platform television show aired internationally. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You simply asserting that they are a notorious figure isn't actually what is required by either WP:GNG or WP:ENT, neither is being on a on a large-platform television show (I mean, do you honestly believe that we have articles on everybody who has competed on The Great British Bake Off or Survivor etc.). In fact, WP:BLP1E makes it quite clear that somebody notable for only one thing doesn't need a standalone article. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a well sourced article about a notable contestant on a very popular TV show makes Wikipedia better. If people are looking up the Drag Race season, it makes sense that a popular entertainer from that show would have a BLP page. There is no problem to be fixed here. Everyone can move along. Gravel for breakfast (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are only noteworthy (according to the coverage in WP:RSs) for being on a season of a reality show, then they don't need a separate article as they are only notable for one event. I can assure you that our coverage of the vast majority very popular TV show[s] manages just fine without every single contestant (who are only covered for appearing on the show) having a separate article. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the thing -- the contestants aren't only on one season of one series. They are on multiple independently notable shows, so I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m very dubious about the idea that anyone on RPDR is automatically on multiple notable shows and thus meets ENT—Untucked is a supplement to the show, as is Whatcha Packin (which Kori has not ever appeared on). That’s a stretch of the criterion, which definitely doesn’t mean to presume notability of everyone who’s been on America’s Next Top Hatmaker, America’s Next Top Hatmaker: Behind the Scenes, and America’s Next Top Hatmaker: Extended Cut. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't recommend spending too much more time/energy trying to delete biographies for Drag Race contestants. Again, there's good reason almost all of the 220+ contestants across 17 seasons have entries. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are very weird for specifically going after people from this show. This seems more like an agenda than a concern over “notability requirements” considering your post history. This is such a bizarre thing to do. 76.78.191.34 (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doomquest

[edit]
Doomquest (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 was hoping to work on this one, but the only significant coverage I can find is one listicle about it on Comic Book Resources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Patriot

[edit]
Iron Patriot (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)

Another fictional (comic) "exoskeleton"-cum-character that is is pure plot summary and list of apperances. My BEFORE shows some hits, but I what I see is pure plot summary - although I was hoping to find some discussion, as some similar 'dark/nationalist' heroes occasionally get academic writeups. Maybe someone will have better luck; if not, this should be redirected (or slightly merged) somewhere (probably to list of Marvel Universe characters, or maybe Features of the Marvel Universe, if folks feel this is more of a gadget than a character...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Norman Osborn the first user of the armor. His article covers the Patriot most extensively, and given the Patriot isn't really a "character", it's likely better redirected here than to a character list, similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcerer Supreme (2nd nomination).
A hatnote can be included linking to War Machine's article, similarly to how Red Hood was handled after his AfD, since Rhodes is the other most significant user of the armor, having used it for an entire comic series. The other users seem to use the Armor more as a footnote; Garza, from what I can gather, doesn't even use the Patriot armor, and is instead paired with Rhodes's Patriot, while Ho seems to only use it for a brief span of issues, and not as a consistent identity like the other two. Carter's usage seems to have been only for an issue. Thus, I doubt any further disambiguation is necessary; if the Patriot armor is linked, it can be linked to Osborn's article, which gives the greatest amount of depth on what the Patriot armor is. Unopposed to a vice versa swap on if the primary target should be Rhodes while Osborn is the secondary target, but this just fails notability and is likely better covered as part of a primary topic. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Spider

[edit]
Iron Spider (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)

Fictional... exoskeleton? Really? Sigh. Well, it's probably just a badly written lead. Realistically, this is a fictional character (per WP:DUCK :P). Regardless, it seems like a niche comic book non-notable character; the article is the usual plot summary+list of appearances, with no reception/analysis. My BEFORE fails to find anything. Assuming we agree this is a character, it should be merged to list of Marvel Universe characters; otherwise, probably to Features of the Marvel Universe (since we don't have Technology of the Marvel Universe article). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Given Iron Spider isn't a "character" per se, I feel it's likely better redirected to a primary topic. The two best options are likely Peter Parker (Marvel Cinematic Universe), who uses a variant of the armor extensively, or to Ultimate Spider-Man (TV series), where the Iron Spider is the identity used by one of the main characters. I have no preference to either, since both are solid targets. Alternatively, it can be mentioned at Alternative versions of Spider-Man, since this is technically an alternate version. I have no preference, but I'll let further consensus decide what is best. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pokelego999. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this as a separate character (because it isn't). I am neutral on the redirect target (but Spider-Man is as good as any). Shooterwalker (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murderworld (comics)

[edit]
Murderworld (comics) (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)

Fictional location. Pure plot summary and list of appearances; no WP:GNG visible in the article (no reception/analysis), nothing in my BEFORE. At best, WP:ATD-R suggests we can redirect this to Features of Marvel Universe or such. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Good target. Even if this was technically notable this is probably better per NOPAGE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arcade per Rorschama. Seems to be the most logical target whilst also keeping it together with relevant information to the location. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 12:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two separate Redirect/Merge target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miho (Sin City)

[edit]
Miho (Sin City) (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)

Minor comic character. The usual issues with WP:GNG - article is a plot summary + list of appearances; reception is very short (just two listicles). My BEFORE is of no help. WP:ATD-R gives us a plausible target: List of Sin City characters. (If anyone is interested in this series, note I've justed PRODed a bunch of characters/organizations; others will be nominated for AfD - right now I am not seeing any GNG for anything fictional from Template:Sin City. Feel free to deprod and redirect stuff to the list of characters, of course (or we can discuss them here). I am bringing Miho to AfD to notify folks interested in this (and also because she has the most references out of all of the Sin City articles, so it seems she is the 'best' out of this sorry bunch of, let's face it, WP:FANCRUFT). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Technological Enterprises

[edit]
Cross Technological Enterprises (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)

Fictional company most prominently related to Ant-Man. Fails WP:GNG (just the usual plot summary and list of appearances; no reception). My BEFORE failed to find anything substantial. Per WP:ATD-R, could redirect (merge?) to Features of the Marvel Universe or Darren Cross (fictional founder, has its own article)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Darren Cross, as the company is predominantly associated with him, regardless of a brief period where he was not in control. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If redirect or merge, where? Three targets have been suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Snow

[edit]
Luna Snow (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)

So after discovering this article, I wanted to do a hard dive into sources on it. However, upon digging...there's really next to nothing. Several articles are addressing the fact people thought she was a new character in Marvel Rivals, but they are carbon copies of one another: explaining the character's origin and usage, with no reception or discussion about her as a character itself. This article from Polygon felt like the strongest source, and what got my interest piqued to check for more, but even it barely discusses her, and is more about Iron Fist's redesign and Rivals.

Scholar also turned up nothing. She's a character in a vacuum, and while I'd rather be proven wrong I just can't find anything through a thorough WP:BEFORE to indicate she's notable. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Comics and animation. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no immediate comment on deletion yet, but I am opening the possibility of a list of Marvel Rivals characters (comparable to the Overwatch one) given that they have spoken about including less well-known characters from the Marvel cannon, where notability outside of the game is unlikely. Most of the heroes in Rivals are notable before the game (even Jeff) but I am sure we'll see more. — Masem (t) 16:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if a list is really necessary compared to a table in the game's article for now, but once the cast grows I could see it as a good idea to do such a list.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that there is enough coverage of heroes as in the game to do a list with two paragraphs for each, one briefly summarizing the Canon of the character, and a second to cover their skill kit, as is done for the Overwatch ones. Judging by how the new heroes have been covered. This would also recent excessive game details on the individual char articles. But still thinking this through. — Masem (t) 20:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep [8] [9] [10] [11] (game guides can still qualify as SIGCOV as long as the article itself is not) as well as the other sources shown in the article, make me feel like this character is probably notable on her own. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is sufficient coverage such as MSN, DEXERTO, Kotaku, Polygon, TechRadar etc. Drushrush (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first source is useless, it's a short note about fans of a niche game being upset about a price of a cosmetic item featuring her. It has nothing to do with her outside her being part of the said cosmetic. Second source is a bit longer but again, it focuses on mechanics of her character in a game, it's mostly useless for us. Third is more reliable and longer but it is still about her video game character in that particular game. Fourth is again about the game, but it is reliable and it goes beyond mechanics to discuss some cultural stuff. Fifth is a review of the cosmetic. Sigh. I am sorry, but those sources are not about Luna Snow, they are about Luna Snow (Marvel Rivals character). If this is all we have, then sadly, we cannot warrant keeping an article on her, but we could write up an article on the video game version of her character. Weird, I know... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as per 4 sources above. AgerJoy talk 18:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Drushrush: @Zxcvbnm: @AgerJoy: While gameguide material can be used to establish character notability, it still needs to assert some importance outside of the game itself i.e. players being attacked for using Symmetra in Overwatch for how poor hers was or outright using her a troll pick to frustrate players. None of that is indicated here. There is also next to no discussion of the character as a fictional character outside of the Polygon article above, which is what we should be aiming for first and foremost. One needs to consider what the sources are saying for WP:SIGCOV, not that they simply exist.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I do my best to look for any angle to justify an article's creation, but here, I find it uncompelling that all the sources are a combination of game guide discussion and/or offer limited commentary. I don't think it's a weak article situation, I've seen worse, but I would be more comfortable if there were stronger articles to cite. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (and/or merge) per my analysis of sources above. What we have is mostly about video game character, not about the comic book character... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – The deletion rationale does not account for Luna Snow’s broader multimedia presence, which establishes her notability beyond just Marvel Rivals. She is a playable character in five different video games (Marvel Future Fight, Marvel Super War, Marvel Snap, Marvel Puzzle Quest, Marvel Rivals), has appeared in the new animated series Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, and has released more than five officially licensed songs. Additionally, Luna Snow is one of the very few Korean superheroes in Marvel Comics, making her significant in terms of representation and diversity. Existing references in the article already discuss this aspect, further reinforcing her significance beyond her video game appearances. Furthermore, per WP:NFICTION, fictional characters can be considered notable if they have substantial independent coverage outside of plot summaries. While much of the current discussion focuses on game-related sources, her presence across multiple mediums suggests that she has had lasting impact. Additional coverage should be incorporated rather than outright deletion. If necessary, the article should be improved rather than removed. – Pokedigi (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pokedigi: While I get that, even looking up those alternate media outlets doesn't seem to provide any commentary on her as a character in terms of WP:SIGCOV. We need actual sources proving that she is discussed in secondary reliable sources, not that she simply exists. Otherwise you're basically arguing "sources must exist", no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The article currently contains over 50 references. Are you suggesting that none of them provide the level of reliability or depth required to justify its existence? If there are concerns about specific sources, they should be evaluated and, if necessary, removed or replaced rather than using their perceived weakness as grounds for deletion. It's unusual to see an article with this many citations flagged for deletion rather than improved. Pokedigi (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Having a large number of citations does not by itself make an article notable or worthy of being separate from a main topic. To demonstrate why:
      1. Number of primary sources: 35
      2. Number of routine sources: 35
      In total, the article uses 80 sources, 70 of which are either routine coverage of announcements related to the character or primary sources. So, a total of 10 sources, and even then, I was pretty conservative with calling sources "routine." For instance, "Marvel Rivals: Who is Luna Snow?" many would consider this routine coverage, same with "Who is Luna Snow in Marvel? Powers, origins, and more explained." If we eliminated such articles that just give an explanation of the character, we're down to 7. Now, let's examine these 7 sources:
      1. An actually interesting piece titled "A Spider-Verse Hero's Friendship Shows the Importance of New Perspectives"
      2. A review of Marvel's Voices that expresses excitement about her appearing
      3. An article about the team she belongs to that doesn't talk about her in any significant way
      4. An article listing pop stars who should be in the MCU, with Luna only given mild coverage
      5. An article including a passing mention of a cameo in Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man
      6. Another article including a passing mention of a cameo in Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man
      7. A brief mention by Luna of enjoying voicing the character
      Of these sources, I would say that only one talks about her in any significant depth, the first one, while the others provide minimal coverage, except for the review of Marvel's Voices, which lands somewhere in between.
      Simply put, this is why having a large number of sources tells us nothing about a subject's notability. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a second-stringer character to be sure but per earlier comments there is sufficient coverage in secondary sources to meet NOTE. Morgan695 (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you identify what you think the three strongest sources are, either in the article or linked in the AfD? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge/redirect supporters are rebutting the sources in the article and offered by the keeps, and while there are more "keeps" than !votes for other outcomes I wouldn't call it a consensus yet. Perhaps a source assessment would be beneficial for other editors?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toby the Tram Engine

[edit]
Toby the Tram Engine (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)

Dubious stand-alone WP:GNG (my BEFORE also failed to find anything except a passing mention here and there). No reception or analysis, the only non-plot content is found the the "Prototype and backstory" but it seems to be cobbled from WP:SIGCOV-failing mentions, mostly by the show's creator; and it is padded by general history of the real world J70 tram engine (aka GER Class C53). Per ATD I recommend redirecting this to List of characters in The Railway Series; perhaps with a merge of few relevant sentences from the non-plot section. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notability and popularity of this article is attested by the large number of pages linking to it (see 'What links here'). Redirecting to List of characters in The Railway Series would necessarily obliterate virtually all of the content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mean as custard (talk • contribs) 06:52, February 19, 2025 (UTC)
I am afraid this argument, a variation of WP:GOOGLEHITS (but on Wikipedia) is not going to get much traction - our standards are much higher than 10-15 years ago where such arguments were considered valid. See WP:ITSPOPULAR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This character is perhaps the most recognizable in the series after Thomas. Use of primary references, while raising eyebrows, doesn't necessitate deletion. I do agree with you that this page could use a cleanup though to remove some of the fluff. Kylemahar902 (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Kloor

[edit]
Harry Kloor (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)

Reads a lot like a resume, tangentially mentioned in a few RS. Article may have been made for payment. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Live and learn. Here's what happened, and a good learning curve on this one. The article was created in 2008. It wasn't until 2022 that it was tagged for possible paid editing. With a gap of 14 years, how would anyone know it was paid editing? You see, when articles get tagged for anything, and without any backup proof, a tag is just a tag unless there is some proof. — Maile (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow me, please, to disagree with your observation about the importance of the length of time, i.e. "With a gap of 14 years, how would anyone know it was paid editing?" Well, information does not necessarily appear quickly. We might learn an article was made by a paid editor, or some other pertinent information, a considerable length of time after the article's creation, something for which I believe no examples need be given. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since subject despite the avalanche of citations, the supporting material does not stand up to close scrutiny. Scalpel, please.
Forensics: We can all agree that our subject is the first to obtain a double doctorate, per All the News That's Fit to Print, and by some obscure Russian website, for good measure - though, we must discard the dead links about that double doctorate stuff, such as this Arizona roadkill.
What else do we have? We have listings on a general theme, in which our subject is mentioned, such as this list of alumni, or routine listings of events, e.g. of speaking appearances, such as this; plus, news items that are similarly about something else and not of our subject, e.g. this report about an upcoming movie, whose screenplay is written by Kloor (mentioned once), or this one about a NASA project where our subject is listed as "workshop attendee", or a Captain's Log entry on a "Star Trek interactive science exhibit" where our subject is name dropped once, and so on. Anything else trawled up belongs to the aforepresented categories.
The strong aroma of vanity, whether intentional or not, is not a problem. After all, anyone can see there is no need for two photo-portraits or that we do not get year of birth. Nor is the fact that a major curator of the text is a kamikaze account. The problem is that we do not have enough sources. And arguments to the tune "Oh, he's obviously notable" do not wash. -The Gnome (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Whether or not there was UPE, we still need to have an outcome on this discussion and right now there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coresly, you demand from Clarityfiend to produce proof of a negative, which is literally impossible. On the other hand, refuting Clarityfiend's claim is trivially easy: All you have to do is produce sources. In so many words, the onus is on the party that asserts sources exist. -The Gnome (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Edwards, Gavin (2021). Bad Motherfucker: The Life and Movies of Samuel L. Jackson, the Coolest Man in Hollywood. New York: Hachette Books. ISBN 978-0-306-92430-9. Retrieved 2025-03-02 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Weirder than any of those never-happened projects was an animated film that was over a decade in the making (and depending on how you think about it, still might not be finished): Quantum Quest: A Cassini Space Odyssey. Co-director Harry Kloor was a double PhD (in physics and chemistry) who had a personality better suited to Hollywood than the academy; he touted his multiple black belts in modern martial arts and his Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo sports car. Kloor wrote for the TV show Star Trek: Voyager-and in 1996, he was approached by NASA and JPL to see if he could make an educational film about the Cassini-Huygens mission (a probe, launched in 1997, that ended up in orbit around Saturn to collect massive amounts of data on the gas giant and its rings). ... Kloor wrote a script for a sixty-five-minute educational movie, called Quantum Quest, about the adventures of Dave the Photon; working all his contacts and leaning hard on educational angle, Kloor recruited an improbably high-caliber cast of Hollywood talent who worked for scale, recording voice performances for under a thousand dollars each, including John Travolta, Christian Slater, Sarah Michelle Gellar, James Earl Jones, and Samuel L. Jackson."

    2. Hevesi, Dennis (1994-08-08). "Purdue Student, in a First, Earns a Double Doctorate". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2024-01-18. Retrieved 2025-03-02.

      The article notes: "As 800 graduates crossed the stage in the Purdue Hall of Music in West Lafayette, Ind., the procession halted as 31-year-old Harry Kloor, of Portland, Ore., was double-hooded with two blue, black and gold hoods -- one for his Ph.D. in physics, the other for his Ph.D. in chemistry. ... It was nothing new to Mr. Kloor. In 1986, he earned simultaneous bachelor's degrees, also in physics and chemistry, graduating summa cum laude from Southern Oregon State College."

    3. "Doctor, doctor". People. Vol. 42, no. 8. 1994-08-22. p. 120. EBSCOhost 9408227588.

      The article notes: "Albert Einstein had just one Ph.D. British physicist Stephen Hawking, no slouch himself, has just one Ph.D. Harry Kloor has two Ph.D.'s. And he earned them at the same time. Kloor, 31, scored his remarkable simultaneous double -- in physics and chemistry -- at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., earlier this month, becoming, as far as anyone can determine, the first American to accomplish such a feat. ... The third of four sons whose father was a drapery installer, Kloor was born with both feet pointing backward and spent years wearing metal braces and special shoes. "He was just determined," says his mother, Mary Gray, 65, who remarried after she and Kloor's father divorced and who worked at various times as a nurse's aide, seamstress and bookkeeper. "Nothing ever got him down.""

    4. Quinones, Eric R. (1994-08-09). "Double doctorate makes student a star". The Herald. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2025-03-02. Retrieved 2025-03-02 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Kloor was born with a condition that left him unable to walk until age 7. He has since recovered "110 percent" and credits his father, who died Christmas Day when Kloor was 13, and his mother, who worked as an accountant and a nurse's assistant, for inspiring him to excel. Kloor wants to use his technical knowledge and creativity to work with Fortune 500 companies and Hollywood studios to increase the public's understanding of science. And he wants to serve in the U.S. Congress - though he's lived in Indiana, Oregon, California, Washington and Nevada and doesn't know which state he would represent."

    5. Hoffman, Jascha (2009-10-14). "Q&A: The space entrepreneur". Nature. doi:10.1038/461885a. ProQuest 204559150.

      The article notes: "After completing simultaneous doctorates in physics and chemistry, Harry Kloor became a space-exploration consultant and film-maker. As his three-dimensional animated feature Quantum Quest — made with real footage from the Cassini spacecraft — is previewed in New York, Kloor shares his thoughts on manned space flight and the use of prizes to motivate adventurous science."

    6. Lewinski, John Scott (September 2009). "Film School". Popular Science. Vol. 275, no. 3. p. 32. ProQuest 222952774. Archived from the original on 2009-09-11. Retrieved 2025-03-02.

      The article notes: "Harry Kloor may be the world's most well-rounded nerd. He is the only person to have earned doctorates in physics and chemistry simultaneously, and he has penned episodes of Star Trek: Voyager. And when NASA asked him for help in improving its image with young people, he drew on both of those experiences. The best way to get kids enthused about outer space, Kloor figured, was to hide their medicine in a bucket of popcorn."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Harry Kloor to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • With all due respect to Cunard's typically diligent work, I do not see our subject satisfying Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. Let's take a closer look at the newly proffered links.
More forensics, then: The book Bad Motherfucker is about Samuel L. Jackson. And in it, our subject gets a paragraph about his (short) presence in Hollywood. So, one more link that is not about our subject.
The archived Popular Science article is about the release of the William Shatner-starring film Quantum Quest, for which Kloor is interviewed.
The New York Times' article relates the one event for which our subject is known, i.e. the double PhD. We already have tons of that pyrotechnic. Typical WP:BIO1E. I made sure to point out that almost all extant links point to that one, singular event. But, still, we are presented with more, e.g. the 1994 People magazine, another NYT article, and one more from the Herald. All dated 1994, unsurprisingly. Well, for the umpteenth time, no one disputes the 1994 double-PhD award! It's a fact. But can the recipient get a Wikipedia article on the basis of that one achievement?
So, apologies to my esteemed colleague, but "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" does not suffice. The "significant coverage" must, above all else, be about our subject. And we do not have that; not in the quality and quantity required. -The Gnome (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supermobile

[edit]
Supermobile (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)

Very minor element of the Superman universe; short article, pure plot summary and list of appearances. Fails WP:GNG. No idea where this could redirect, but always open to consider redirection a viable alternative to hard deletion (closer, please note: if anyone suggests a target, consider me to support it). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete unless a merge target can be found. There's not really a good merge target for this. Perhaps to Superman#Merchandising given the one source mentioned here mentions it was used exclusively for that purpose? But even so it'd be a brief sentence. This is an extremely minor universe element, so there's not much to be retained here. If a good merge target is found I'll change my vote to merge, so ping me if something changes. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz (DC Thomson)

[edit]
Buzz (DC Thomson) (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 redirected based on there being only a database source. This was undone, and a new source (this book) was added. That book comes from an author and publisher who do not seem to be notable as I can barely find any info on either, and the book itself appears to be full of reprinted comics and no valuable prose. There's also little to suggest notability of this subject, nor the few bluelinked strips listed here. This appears to be a subject of very niche interest, and probably not something that would've gotten a ton of coverage. I would stick with the redirect to The Topper (comics). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a short running comic (not even 2 years starting in 1973) but it was being reprinted (and advertised on the front cover) as part of Classic of the Comics up until 2010. That's near 40 (not continuous) years as part of national publications. I know the source I added isnt the best but its more than just reprinted comics, its a complete index of the Topper comic that Buzz merged into. I'm going to have a look for more sources. Eopsid (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more sources, I think there are more out there in other books. Eopsid (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kibble-White's Ultimate Book of British Comics has something like 4 pages on it, Gifford's Character Encyclopedia probably covers half-a-dozen plus strips (with his two catalogues possibly good for the odd cite), it might be covered in Cadogan's DCT book (been a while since I read that one) and all of this is without bothering to look at any specialist magazines - Crikey! almost certainly ran at least one article on it. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if it absolutely has to be redirected somewhere because people don't like comics, the list of DC Thomson publications makes a lot more sense than to The Topper, which is just confusing. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Topper seems like a fine target to me since Buzz was merged into it, and that merger is mentioned in The Topper's lead. List of D. C. Thomson & Co. Ltd publications only mentions the name and years of publication, so it's less valuable in terms of how much information is supplied. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comics and animation proposed deletions

[edit]

Categories for discussion

[edit]

Redirects for discussion

[edit]

Templates for discussion

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://ergngevd.top/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Animation/Tasks&oldid=679516692"