Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation
![]() | Points of interest related to Comics on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style – To-do |
![]() | Points of interest related to Animation on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Comics and animation. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Comics and animation|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Comics and animation. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/32px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png)
watch |
- Related deletion sorting
Comics and animation
edit- Barren Earth (DC 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)
I couldn't find any reliable source talking about it so it clearly fails WP:GNG. The article only cites 1 sources which they repeated twice Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Fourth Grade (South Park) (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)
There are several sides to this. But firstly, an episode of a television series is not inherently notable simply because it has aired. I don't find any pass on WP:GNG for this eleventh episode of season 4 of South Park. Secondly, there is 4th Grade (South Park episode) which currently redirects to South Park season 4, which makes this title a duplicate of the former. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Comics and animation, and Colorado. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Every other episode of South Park with the exception of this one had a Wikipedia article, which is why this one was created. For some reason, for this single episode in particular, it just had a redirect to the season 4 page rather than an article. Retaining the article for this episode and fixing the redirect behavior to point to this rather than the season 4 article is more consistent with how every other episode in the series is handled. Onyxqk (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just updated 4th Grade (South Park episode) to redirect to the article for the episode to fix that issue. Onyxqk (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also included a Production section in the article that cites an interview printed in a newspaper at the time about the episode's conception. This aligns the article more with the existing Wikipedia articles on South Park episodes. Onyxqk (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just updated 4th Grade (South Park episode) to redirect to the article for the episode to fix that issue. Onyxqk (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom -- no inherent notability. The three references used here aren't in-depth covreage of this specific eposide, so they don't help the subject meet WP:GNG. WP:OTHERTHINGS doesn't help, and there's no requirement for completeness. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- From WP:OTHERTHINGS: 'If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency.' Onyxqk (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not every South Park character has an article... – The Grid (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not every South Park character has an article, but every South Park episode (except possibly this one) has an article. The example mentioned in WP:OTHERTHINGS is about applying the same treatment to articles that fall into an identical category (whether it's Star Wars main characters or South Park episodes). Onyxqk (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not every South Park character has an article... – The Grid (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- From WP:OTHERTHINGS: 'If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency.' Onyxqk (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:PLOT and failing to meet threshold of Wikipedia:Notability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to South Park season 4#ep59. The title of an episode is a reasonable search term, so redirecting is a better option than deleting, but the current article has too little coverage – in the current references, the only coverage of this specific episode is too brief to justify an entire article. More sources such as episode reviews from notable sites would be needed to keep the article, though I couldn't find any. (From a quick glance, a lot of other season 4 episodes could probably be redirected as well, so having this article because every other episode has an article is a bad argument.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)- Changing stance to keep per the sources below, though I stand by my note that many other season 4 articles are in poor condition and could be redirected (and since this episode was a mid-season premiere of sorts, it likely earned more attention than those episodes). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
- Morrow, Terry (2000-11-08). "'South Park' still delivers punch". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03 – via Newspapers.com.
The review notes: "There's a renewed energy in co-creator Trey Parker's script. Even the opening credits, with the splash of explosions and the techno-laden theme song, punctuate that the show, with 62 episodes now behind it, is not resting on its profitable laurels. The fourth grade brings a new teacher, a Janet Reno look-alike in need of a bra and whose name can't be printed in a family newspaper. ...As "South Park" storytelling goes, this one is fairly straightforward and very funny. This opener is an indication that "South Park" hasn't lost its snap. Parker and co-creator Matt Stone still care passionately for the cartoon, and it is obvious. At this point, many shows—especially live-action comedies—have run out of ideas. But "South Park" retains its rebellious spirit. The fourth grade, it seems, will be very good for the show."
- Werts, Diane (2000-11-08). "The Gang Forges Into Fourth Grade". Newsday. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03 – via Newspapers.com.
The review notes: "All the tangy ingredients of writer-director Parker's patented pop culture stew are there. Cartman and the gang forge into fourth grade amid intrigue, taking in "Star Trek's" time-travel babble, the explosive suspense of "Speed" and former teacher Mr. Garrison's spiritual journey through "the tree of insight" toward his suppressed gay side. The usual nasty-boy word and eye play return in the person of oddly endowed new teacher Ms. Choksondik. There's even a rockin' new opening that elevates wheelchair pal Timmy to full-fledged regular status. But the pieces don't fit together quite as brightly as usual, making the whole somewhat less than the sum of its individually clever parts."
- Brown, Joel (2000-11-08). "Television Review - New season of 'South Park' goes fourth as the kids get promoted". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03.
The review notes: "As always, there's a demented kind of uplift here. Hypocrites are skewered, personal growth is encouraged and Timmy is treated with a rough fellowship that may be more politically correct than the show's creators OR its detractors would want to admit. Still this is a show that will send a lot of people screaming from the room. ... There's nothing in this episode quite as taboo-busting or as funny as the explicit love affair between Saddam Hussein and Satan in the "South Park" movie and one episode last season. But there's still enough off-color humor, graphic language and generally twisted mentality on display to give Bill Bennett a cerebral hemorrhage."
- Saunders, Michael; Sullivan, Jim (2000-11-08). "An upgrade on 'South Park'". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes: "Tonight marks the start of a new season for the boys and girls at "South Park," the twisted, animated brainchild of Matt Stone and Trey Parker that airs on Comedy Central. Kyle, Cartman, and their pals enter fourth grade and are thrust into the horrific clutches of Ms. Choksondik, who forces cursive writing upon them. They lament "it's the end of innocence" and immediately persuade two "Star Trek"-freak college geeks to build a time machine to send them back to third grade."
- Kronke, David (2000-11-08). "The Hype". Daily News of Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03.
The review notes: "South Park returns tonight, with Kyle, Cartman and company promoted—somehow—to the fourth grade, where their new teacher, Miss Choksondik (no, it's not very subtle), is a fearsome creature with really, really pendulous breasts and a floating right pupil. It's bad enough for the guys to get nostalgic about third grade, and before long, they're building a time machine, which unsurprisingly creates chaos, and not much after that, right after the rather belated and lame "Speed" parody, Kenny dies, and a brand-new catch phrase is born."
- Morrow, Terry. "Kids of 'South Park' Growing Up Slowly". The Journal Gazette. Scripps Howard News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03.
The article notes: ""South Park: The Fourth Grade Years" (10 p.m. today on Comedy Central, Comcast Channel 65) will follow Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman into a new grade, with a new teacher, as creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone find more playground for the boys to trod."
- Bianco, Robert (2000-11-08). "Critic's corner". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03.
The review notes: "Those foul-talking kids from South Park (Comedy Central, 10 p.m. ET/PT) face the end of innocence as they are promoted to the fourth grade. Happily, age has not dimmed their ability to make you laugh helplessly, or to leave you gasping at their robust tastelessness."
Cunard (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Are these "significant coverage"? They're all capsule reviews. The longest seems to be the Kronke article, which is just a plot summary. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- The Boston Globe article includes an interview with the creators about the episode and is several paragraphs long (more than solely a plot summary). The Boston Herald article is a review that is also several paragraphs long. The Newsday article also includes a review of the episode including its downsides (rather than just summarizing). Will update the article on the episode to include a 'Reception' section with the coverage in these reliable sources. Onyxqk (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Included a Reception section featuring reviews from three reliable sources and included information from the interview with the Boston Globe in the Production section. Onyxqk (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- The Boston Globe article includes an interview with the creators about the episode and is several paragraphs long (more than solely a plot summary). The Boston Herald article is a review that is also several paragraphs long. The Newsday article also includes a review of the episode including its downsides (rather than just summarizing). Will update the article on the episode to include a 'Reception' section with the coverage in these reliable sources. Onyxqk (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Morrow, Terry (2000-11-08). "'South Park' still delivers punch". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03 – via Newspapers.com.
- Keep in view of the multiple reliable secondary sources identified in this discussion which together enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- List of Metal Men enemies (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)
WP:OR without independent sources or any justification of the notability of the group. Fails other policies about what Wikipedia is not, such as "Wikipedia is not a directory". Jontesta (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - There are no sources that I can find that give significant coverage to the Metal Men's enemies that would allow this to pass WP:LISTN. Very few of these entries link to articles, because most have zero notability. Could possibly Redirect to Metal Men#Enemies, but given that the title is an unlikely search term and it does not appear that anything currently redirects to this list, I don't see that as being really necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or merge with their section at Metal Men in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Based on what sources, exactly? Rorshacma (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever sources any source hunters on this website can find. Plus, the person who created this list page is currently inactive last time I checked. If nobody finds one, my decision is still merge. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Rorshacma. WP:BEFORE didn't show me a lot of sources. I wouldn't object to a partial merge if that WP:ATD emerges as a consensus. But that's really hard when a lot of these fail WP:V. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- List of Pakistani animated television series (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)
An unsourced list of non-notable work does not really meet WP:NLIST imv. and since it includes only a handful of entries, it's make sense to delete it. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan 🤓☝🏻 11:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: A rather standard list. Can be very easily sourced individually or with things like https://english.aaj.tv/news/330375751/pti-calls-off-rally-as-islamabad-red-zone-sealed-schools-closed ; https://tribune.com.pk/story/409963/animatedly-yours etc. There's no "TV animation in Pakistan" article so a list is suitable. Could also be considered a WP:SPLITLIST of List of Pakistani television series so I find no real reason for deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- So If there isn’t an article on TV animation in Pakistan, probably due to insufficient coverage, then having a list on the topic, which also lacks coverage and primarily includes non-notable work, seems unnecessary and fails to meet WP:NLIST imv. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)