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.
watch |
- Related deletion sorting
Comics and animation
[edit]- Professor Farnsworth (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 is not an AfD i want to do. I absolutely love Futurama and it was one of my favorite comedy cartoons, but unfortunately, this character does not pass WP:GNG. Of the eight sources, none are independent and are only passing mentions, some don't even discuss him, at all. I tried doing a WP:BEFORE and i can't find anything that talks about him.
Again, i didn't want to do this, but i have to, there is no turning back from what i am doing, so i am doing the right thing to nominate this for AfD. Toby2023 (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- List of submissions for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature (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)
The topic for this list is unencyclopedic. While it is possible to find a list of submitted films by year, this is trivial information – there is a major difference between being nominated (or even shortlisted) and merely being eligible. (As a comparison, would we allow a list of every Best Picture–eligible film? I suspect not even though sources exist.) See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Film, and Comics and animation. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: it's not indiscriminate; the inclusion criterion is clear. It's not trivial; it's rather an important topic and the lead section is clear about what it is. It's not unsourced. Saying it's unencyclopaedic seems to be a personal view. I say it's encyclopaedic because it's part of the detailed history of animation and animated film awards and it's manageable. -Mushy Yank. 10:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete also per WP:MILL and WP:NOTNEWS. There's essentially no bar for submitting eligible films, and studios generally will just submit stuff even if they have no realistic chance of winning (or even being nominated) whatsoever. While lists of eventual nominees are almost surely of sufficient notability (and noteworthiness), lists of submissions are not. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Looking at Category:Academy Awards lists, I'd recommend nominating other such submission lists for the same reasons. Of particular note are those two not-so-little subcats at the top of foreign-language film submissions, which break down even further by type. There are about an extra 200 lists in those that could stand to be mass nominated for deletion. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Deathstroke (Marvel 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)
The DC Comics version is way more notable than this one. He isn't notable at all, the article has no publication history and only has one section, in which it says he fought and was defeated by Spider-Woman. He only has two sources, one is a list of supervillains, and another a dead link of the comic issue itself. His article is a complete mess. Toby2023 (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D. The encyclopedia entry by Rovin seems like a descent enough source, but I see no reason we couldn't cover the character in a list.4meter4 (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Shellwood (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per 4meter4. BOZ (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sven (Voltron) (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)
Unfortunately, as i am a Voltron fan myself, this character fails WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE found nothing, it only talks about the shows he is from. This is something i didn't want to do, but i have to nominate it. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same issues as him.:
- Princess Allura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Keith (Voltron) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lance (Voltron) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Hunk (Voltron) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Prince Lotor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Emperor Zarkon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Rise of Voltron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Toby2023 (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Comics and animation, and Anime and manga. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Procedural keep for The Rise of Voltron as it is an episode and not a character and does not belong in this bundled nomination. It should be nominated separately. Merge all others to List of Voltron characters per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I know it is an episode, but i still included this because it is Voltron after all. It doesn't pass WP:GNG. Toby2023 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I understand, but it's best to bundle nominations where the outcomes have a shared ending. In general, the bundling process is best avoided when articles are not very close in design. A charcter page is very different then a television episode page.4meter4 (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Procedural close WP:NPASR, but make sure that WP:BUNDLE is scrupulously followed per the above. If not, this is more likely than not going to end up as a train wreck. Better to restart clean with separate noms for characters and episode(s) rather than hoping it doesn't go off the rails. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Where The Robots Grow (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)
You know how sometimes it's hard to tell if a subject is barely notable and low profile (for now, anyways) or not notable at all? That's the problem with this article. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This is absolutely no better than the hundreds of Vyond/GoAnimate grounding video or MS Paint masterpiece articles that have hit the AfD/speedy bin over the years, except an adult is proud of typing in a few things into a box and calling it a movie. At least you can say children are more creative than this (I tried to watch it but it made me ill from the uncanny valley framerate). Nate • (chatter)
- Comment: There's a full-length Forbes article about the film. I'm not ready to vote Keep yet, but that's a good start. Toughpigs (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Content written by Forbes contributors is deemed generally unreliable (WP:FORBESCON), so that particular article can't be used for establishing notability. toweli (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify. Being the first AI generated animated film seems like an important milestone. It looks like the film was created more as a way to show what the production company can do as opposed to releasing a real film. More coverage may emerge over the next week or two to prove WP:SIGCOV. I say move it to draft and require that it go through draft review before coming back to mainspace. If better sources don't emerge it will time out in draft.4meter4 (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- @4meter4 I thought of that, but this is a situation where a draft was technically objected to. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's the advantage of an WP:ATD at AFD. We can force an article to undergo a draft review.4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- @4meter4 My thought exactly. Deletion, redirect, draftify, significant improvement...anything other than "the article existing as is" is good, to be honest. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's the advantage of an WP:ATD at AFD. We can force an article to undergo a draft review.4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Way too soon - this film is only a month old. Short announcements pop up in AI/SciFi informal web sites, but that's all. IF (big if?) this eventually becomes a film that has had an impact, an article can be created then. I don't even think there is enough here to warrant draftify. Lamona (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Merge to the film, I don't see SIGCOV for the character yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Lean merge [1] and [2] give better analysis towards the character, but I cannot discern between the analysis of the character and Riley/whole movie, so these more up to interpretation, therefore I'm a weak/lean !merge. I think this article can exist with more analysis and I'll change my !vote if more comes in. Conyo14 (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- there was a discussion already about this see Talk:Inside Out 2/Archive 1#Create your own article for Anxiety where a user was trying get someone else to make them the article, I replied I was busy on the box office records by inside out 2 draft but they keep on asking someone to make it for them i originally said I would look into it when I get the time but I think other characters (for example Sadness) probably is more noteworthy so I created a draft for that user to work on the draft currently here Draft:Anxiety (Inside Out) Fanoflionking3 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Fanoflionking3: I was the one who made that discussion a few months ago, but I was not the one who created the article. The real author is @MrKaraRocks:, I was interested in creating it months ago but as time passed (and you didn't finish the other work) I asked for the interest. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and China. Mccapra (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- For a well-known online comic in China, the source is sufficient. Wtf35861887 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway, I added some sources and updated the content. Wtf35861887 (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Do you know of any other sites that mention the anime? Do any news articles say "Wow, 69 million people are watching this and that is unusual because [reason]"? Because that could indicate notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weak delete Would defer to anyone who can read and evaluate these Chinese-language sources. From what I can tell, these are mostly sourcing to the comic itself and pages from comic archive sites that note that the subject exists. Not bad but not indicative of notability. What this article needs is sources that show that the comic is important: Critical reviews of the comic. Scholarly works that mention or discuss the comic. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Just did a very cursory source-check myself. Google gave "Beauty and the West Chamber" no first-page results of the type we'd need. Google Scholar gave no hits at all. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. CoconutOctopus talk 10:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- That's not a reason for deletion. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- delete insufficient coverage for notability. --Altenmann >talk 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: sources on the page+https://www.topito.com/top-plagiats-dessins-animes https://collider.com/worst-animated-movies-2000s-ranked-letterboxd/ https://collider.com/animated-movies-2000s-worst-ranked/ and even https://collider.com/worst-animated-movies-letterboxd/ https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/26648/7-hollywood-ripoffs-titles-and-posters-and-plots-you-wont-believe + https://www.avclub.com/don-t-look-directly-at-these-horrifying-children-s-movi-1798257240 + https://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/animated-mockbusters-list-94032.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160410042024/http://news.nster.com/1079-funny-and-ridiculous-rip-offs-of-famous-movies.html At the very least a redirect to List of Brazilian films of 2008 or to List of animated feature films of 2008 or to the 'original' film seems warranted in my humble opinion. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've alreadt explained how I don't believe the sources in the article are notable or significant; none of the sources you link above appear to me to be significant coverage but mostly "fun lists" which aren't enough for inclusion. I also don't think the article title is notable enough for a redirect. CoconutOctopus talk 19:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- And you have every right to, I'm merely stating my case as to why deletion is correct. We'll see what the consensus is. CoconutOctopus talk 19:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've alreadt explained how I don't believe the sources in the article are notable or significant; none of the sources you link above appear to me to be significant coverage but mostly "fun lists" which aren't enough for inclusion. I also don't think the article title is notable enough for a redirect. CoconutOctopus talk 19:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
should a Redirect be the path chosen Vídeo Brinquedo#Filmography might be the best target.Mushy Yank (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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:
(MentalFloss)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!
(Collider A)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 B)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 C)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.
(NSTER, Archived)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..
- 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)
- (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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as overall there is enough critical commentary from independent reliable sources identified in this discussion such as Collider, NSTER, and Mental Floss to enable the pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree some of it's sources needs to be removed, especially the Amazon order because Amazon is (what I believe) 100% not reliable for referencing on Wikipedia because it's just a shopping website that won't educate Wikipedia editors or readers that much. Furthermore, Amazon is somehow a target for spammers and advertisers to spam URLs on websites, which means Wikimedia and Wikipedia admins do need to remove Amazon links from articles on Wikipedia. A reliable website does need to make articles about this knock-off movie so we can cite a reliable source. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Jason Todd. There is consensus here among policy based input that a redirect is the better outcome. While I hear the arguments that this shouldn't be at AfD, and that is a valid argument, it is already here and there are no grounds for a procedural close because there was active discussion. History is preserved should consensus change. Star Mississippi 15:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)- 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)
- Plot summaries are transformative, and hence valid secondary sources. Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Plot summaries are transformative, and hence valid secondary sources. Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- I think a redirect to Jason Todd with a hatnote for Joker. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- I think a redirect to Jason Todd with a hatnote for Joker. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Redirect to Jason Todd. Agree that there are not enough sources to establish GNG for the Red Hood as a concept. Anyone searching for the Red Hood will almost certainly mean Jason. Joker's article already includes information about how the Red Hood relates to him, and the gang is not notable. Rhino131 (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Use this page for more detailed information on the Red Hood character, including the history of his being portrayed by the Joker and the rise of the Red Hood Gang. As the character is primarily known for being an alias of Jason Todd, have a shorter summary of this period in the Jason Todd article and link to this article for interested readers. 77.102.202.253 (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- This doesn't really address the Wikipedia:ALLPLOT issues described above, and Todd's article isn't really at a point where a summary-only split-out of Red Hood is needed for something like size requirements. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep An article doesn't have to be about a character. It can be about a motif or recurring element. Think of the Red Hood that way, and there we are. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is the Red Hood isn't notable as a motif or recurring element Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Basically this. Even if we discuss Red Hood as a concept and not a character, that still doesn't address any of the notability concerns above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- You and I disagree on that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is the Red Hood isn't notable as a motif or recurring element Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)