Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Comics and animation|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Comics and animation. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{ transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{ prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Article alerts are available, updated by AAlertBot. More information...


 Scan for comics AfDs

Scan for animation AfDs
Scan for webcomics AfDs
Scan for comics Prods
Scan for animation Prods
Scan for webcomics Prods
Scan for comics template TfDs
Scan for animated series template TfDs

Related deletion sorting

Comics and animation

List of Athena's Saints

List of Athena's Saints (  | 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)

Riding on the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Saint Seiya antagonists (by User:Jontesta), this is poorly referenced sublist that is WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:FANCRUFT and fails WP:NLIST. At best we could redirect it (maybe merge a bit) to List of Saint Seiya characters Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Blue Beetle enemies

List of Blue Beetle enemies (  | 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 indication of notability. There isn't anything other than a WP:DIRECTORY of appearances, because there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources. Jontesta ( talk) 16:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of My Little Pony villains

List of My Little Pony villains (  | 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 indication of notability. There is already a list of List of My Little Pony characters with its own errors and problems. Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to arbitrarily make repeated articles about the same topic unless there is WP:SIGCOV to justify it. Jontesta ( talk) 16:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge to List of My Little Pony characters. This article is a great labor of love but I really don't see anything indicating any independent notability for it as its own list. jp× g 🗯️ 07:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Discrimination against superheroes

All prior XfDs for this page:


Discrimination against superheroes (  | 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)

Article looks to be a relic in many regards of a time when articles saw far less scrutiny on their suitability for inclusion. Quite frankly it is clearly more of a fan essay, filled with significant amounts of original research. Despite coming to over 7000 words there are a mere 30 citations evident, of which there only appears to be a single source from a reliable, third-party source and the rest fanblogs or simply the primary source (i.e. the comic itself).

The article in question has been marked for improvement for nearly a decade now and it has failed to be done, instead only slowly growing and growing as more fan-essay content is occasionally added. This to me suggests there is little room to be improved to meet Wikipedia core policies on original research, verfiability, and neutral point of view.

Given the complete failure to meet any of wikipedia's policies I move to delete. Rambling Rambler ( talk) 18:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and improve, possibly rename to something more clearly fiction-oriented. Discrimination against "differently abled" individuals whose difference happens to be a superpower is a very well-established and well-examined literary device. BD2412 T 21:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ BD2412 the problem is that the article quite clearly isn't one aimed of being an encyclopaedic detailing of superheroism as a literary device to examine attitudes towards marginalised groups, and how that's been examined critically and/or academically. Instead it's effectively just an extremely verbose list of "every form of fictional legislation around superheroes in every publication users can identify, regardless of what that legislation does or doesn't represent".
    I think a great example of how completely unsuitable it is can be seen in how it documents both the Mutant Control Act (which was used to examine issues such as authoritarianism) and a fictional court case in The Incredibles seeing superheroes being liable for the damage they cause as both being examples of "discrimination against superheroes". Rambling Rambler ( talk) 23:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is the redirect target of a number of enumnerated fictional elements like the Keene Act--check 'What links here'. Just that one fictional act is covered ( 1, 2, 3 from the first 5 results) by multiple sources indexed by Google Scholar. The nomination's other arguments are non-policy based; the nominator should have spent more time with BEFORE rather than arguing against the possibility of improvement without any understanding of the article or its source material. Jclemens ( talk) 22:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I think you'll find you're the one making non-policy based arguments. I have literally argued how it fails to meet any of the three core Wikipedia policies, all you've done is link three paywalled journals asserting they justify the article because they may contain references to Watchmen without actually demonstrating from those sources how they'd merit inclusion or the retention of the entire article as opposed to a few lines about one comic series that would therefore merit inclusion simply on that series' existing article.
    You could also consider working on your obvious patronising attitude at the same time... Rambling Rambler ( talk) 23:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    You're right, I should apologize: I'm sorry that your failure to BEFORE irritates me to the point I begin to confuse poor nomination with intent to damage Wikipedia. I should AGF more and focus on educating you, even though you've been around long enough that I think you should know better.
    So, let's start at the beginning: Does this article suck? Sure. Should it be deleted? Well, let's first look at the bad arguments you advanced: Age of article, age of improvement templates, length/citation ratio, and confusing lack of improvement with lack of potential for improvement. None of those is a reason for deletion; all are instead reasons for improvement, all can be fixed with regular editing. "But wait!" I imagine you retorting, "What about DEL#REASON number eight?" Therein lies the only policy-based argument you've advanced, that it doesn't have any RS coverage. So, lesson summary "It sucks!" is not a reason for deletion; "It can't possibly ever not suck!" is. (Oh, and "It's named wrong" that you advanced in a reply is also a good reason to change the name, not delete the article).
    This brings us to WP:BEFORE. Did you do one? If you did, you didn't describe it. I did one search on one of the various instantiations of this concept, on Google Scholar only, and found three resources. Per WP:PAYWALL the fact that you can't read them says nothing about their suitability. Now, they may not in fact be suitable--what you got from me was a fraction of the effort you should have expended, shoehorned into my lunch break, hence the relative brevity of my post.
    So how to do better in the future? Two things: Do BEFORE, and look at 'what links here' to see if, instead of a slowly growing essay, this is a target for the merger of other 'meh' articles in the past. For example, the Keene Act which still remains a redirect to a stubbified article that does not now mention it, and which the three references I documented mention or discuss. Jclemens ( talk) 05:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    Just really tripling down on the "you are stupid and beneath me" huh?
    Well have a nice day and I hope you work on the god-complex you have. Rambling Rambler ( talk) 07:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    Ignoring the personal insult, although an apology from you would be appropriate, if you were stupid and beneath me I would respond differently. Rather, as part of the "bad content should be deleted, not left around for eventual improvement that may never happen" crowd, you're perfectly intelligent and sincere, but misguided. I'll note that you didn't address any of the policy education I delivered to you. Why is that? If you think I'm wrong, by all means show me how I am wrong. Jclemens ( talk) 19:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    Have you ever considered that rather than spending the last few years hanging around in the "drama" side of Wikipedia and assumedly being just as much of a patronising 'educator of the misguided' towards everyone as you are here, you could actually have undertaken any of the improvement activity you supposedly hold in high regard? Rambling Rambler ( talk) 20:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    Educating well-meaning but wrong editors is a far better effort multiplier than fixing things myself. As I've said elsewhere, I have a finite amount of time and should be spending more of the rest of it helping suffering human beings, so no, I don't really have time to do more than watch DRV and DELSORT and argue against misguided deletion efforts. Jclemens ( talk) 22:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    Be very well-assured, I am clapping what an amazing human being of such selflessness you are right now as you felt the need to humblebrag multiple times about your day job... Rambling Rambler ( talk) 22:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    Hmm, since there's no evidence you even read the article's talk page before nominating, why should I assume you're going to read what I say in response to others in this discussion? And I mean... you've replied snarkily multiple times without reference to the substance of my arguments. Are you ready to move on and actually talk about policy? Jclemens ( talk) 23:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    Why? Anything I base in policy is clearly just going to see further baseless allegations that I didn't actually read the policy or well I mustn't have read it properly because it doesn't match the thoughts of the person apparently too busy saving people to add anything to mainspace but all the hours in the world to be patronising on AFDs... Rambling Rambler ( talk) 23:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    Baseless accusations? Are you saying that you did read the appropriate policies but chose to ignore them? Me saying you obviously didn't read carefully enough is AGFing: we all miss or gloss over things from time to time, no harm no foul, acknowledge and move on. But if you did read policies, were aware of the points I raised, and disregarded them... that's a conduct issue on you. It's kinda hard to tell what you're actually saying, because again, you're not responding to policy points I have made, so "baseless" is kinda out of left field here. And today is my day off, thanks for asking, and yes, I should be closing charts instead of bantering here. Jclemens ( talk) 00:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    Reading policies and then coming to a different conclusion that wasn't your view on them isn't "ignoring them". As someone supposedly in the medical field I would have thought you'd be well-aware of what the concept of a second opinion is... Rambling Rambler ( talk) 09:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    ( edit conflict) Come on now, you're better than this. You know that the article being a fan essay is indeed a policy-based WP:Reason for deletion, specifically WP:DELREASON#14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia (see WP:NOTESSAY). You should indeed WP:Assume good faith more, starting by not accusing people of failure to do a proper WP:BEFORE and acting without any understanding of the article or its source material—if one actually does what WP:BEFORE suggests and conducts a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search (and for that matter a Google Scholar search, which is suggested for academic subjects) for "Discrimination against superheroes", one does not exactly drown in relevant results. The idea that the fact that your search for "Keene Act" turned up a few results—that you admit to not even knowing if they are suitable—somehow demonstrates that the nominator did not do a proper WP:BEFORE search is seriously flawed. Firstly, as you correctly note, that's not the topic of this article but one of the various instantiations of this concept. I hope that I don't need to explain the very basic concept that WP:Notability is not inherited to you, but for the benefit of others that may read this: an example of something (a topic/concept/idea/whatever) being notable has no bearing on the broader topic being notable, and conversely an overarching topic being notable has no bearing on any examples being notable—those are orthogonal questions. I also hope that I don't need to explain to you that we don't construct article scopes based on editors' reckoning that A, B, and C are all instances of broader topic X (as that would be WP:SYNTH), we leave it to the sources. Secondly, WP:BEFORE explicitly says that if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate. If you truly wanted to assume good faith, you could have used the working assumption that the nominator did a more thorough WP:BEFORE search than you did and came to the conclusion that the sources were insufficient. I would also note that presenting sources from a supposed WP:BEFORE search without checking that they are pertinent is the kind of thing that people have been banned from deletion discussions for (persistently) doing. Why do you take it upon yourself to lecture people about WP:BEFORE searches if you are not even going to do them properly yourself when doing so? Why should anyone take you seriously when you talk about notability-demonstrating sources existing if you are not even going to check that the sources you bring up actually demonstrate notability? I know based on your track record that you are capable of contributing constructively to Wikipedia—why do you choose to do stuff like this instead? TompaDompa ( talk) 20:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    • This article wasn't an essay--not every article that's a mess of examples without a better narrative is--and even if it was, it was correctable by editing.
    • I respond briefly by doing some of the work the nominator should have done. That doesn't make me obligated to do the rest. Thus, I never said the sources weren't suitable, I said I didn't have time to deep-dive them during my lunch hour. (ETA: Oh, and I did, below, provide one print RS source with a detailed quote further demonstrating notability.)
    • To continue, I am absolutely not leaving patients waiting while doing Wikipedia, so what you get out of me since 2012 is my best efforts consistent with the other obligations I have in life.
    • If BEFORE doesn't include looking at talk pages and understanding what's been going on with the article or looking at 'What links here' to see where mergers and redirections affect a page, it absolutely should.Oh, wait, those are WP:BEFORE checks steps four (Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.) and six (Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.) respectively. Again, we're here because of a failure on the part of the nominator to do due diligence as expected by the process guideline documentation. So yeah... understanding the process could have saved everyone a lot of time here. Jclemens ( talk) 22:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
      Whether or not the assertion that the article was an essay was correct, the argument that this means that it should be deleted is a policy-based one—contrary to your statement that The nomination's other arguments are non-policy based. I know you never said the sources weren't suitable, hence why I specified that you admit to not even knowing if they are suitable. And even if you don't have time to contribute in the ways you used to any more, I would suggest that these kinds of quasi- WP:BEFORE searches for sources that muddy the waters might not be the most constructive way of using your limited time here. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
      Those are fair points, especially the last. I had literally 5-10 minutes to address a problem I believed that, if deleted rather than improved would seriously impair comic coverage. I'm not a comics expert myself, only saw the issue because of DELSORT fictional elements, and believed it best to say something given that it's hard to get people to re-review a 'delete' !vote if one adds sources later in the discussion. In the past, when I've said "Hang on, this isn't right, I'll dig up some sources tomorrow" I've gotten "Oh, look, a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument instead of any real sourcing"-type responses, which has modified my response to be more along these lines. Jclemens ( talk) 23:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not policy based? It doesn't meet notability standards, that's the bare minimum we apply around here. This "essay" contains no critical discussion of this concept, nor is it sourced to anything reliable. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    You do understand WP:NEXIST, right? You can say the article in its current state doesn't demonstrate notability, but you cannot truthfully say the concept is non-notable, because, well, it is, and the nom should have done enough research to understand that per BEFORE. Jclemens ( talk) 05:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This in-world essay only describes Marvel characters; rather long and rambling, not suitable for a general encyclopedia. The sourcing confirms nothing notable and most aren't even RS. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    It's been stubbified; your critiques no longer apply to the article as edited (presumably) after your statement. Jclemens ( talk) 05:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This seems like a splendid topic to have an article on, provided that there are sources discussing the overarching topic. Where are those sources? I have spent some time cleaning up the article now by removing unsourced material, improper reliance on primary sources, in-universe plot details and real-world speculation about upcoming such, and so on. Not much remains, and there turned out to not be any sources on the overarching topic cited. We can of course not simply take a bunch of examples from works of fiction that we as editors have noticed and decide that they collectively form a particular overarching topic with a scope that we define—this is not TV Tropes, and here on Wikipedia that would be WP:Improper editorial synthesis. We don't do media analysis ourselves here, we leave that to the sources. It's also difficult to emphasize enough just what an absolute mess of WP:Writing about fiction violations the article was in when it was nominated. The amount of WP:INUNIVERSE perspective was nothing short of astounding. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify While it could be a workable topic, it's just too threadbare to make sense as a standalone article and in its current state, almost certainly needs to be merged. We'll see if it can be accepted from the draft namespace once it's properly expanded to article length. I would also support a name change to Discrimination in superhero fiction to make it sound less blatantly in-universe. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 04:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    Ok, Stubbify as TompaDompa did, or draftify, but certainly not both. Again, note how many different incoming redirects there are to this page. If it were a choice between the two, stubbifying is certainly less disruptive to superhero coverage. Jclemens ( talk) 05:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    No, both makes sense. If it was in the state it was before TompaDompa took an axe to it, I'd have certainly said delete as an unencyclopedic page. Though it may have been better to have deleted it and have TompaDompa start over with a new article, since the scope changed so drastically from a single plot point to an overall examination of discrimination. Either way, it is not a necessary part of superhero coverage as it can easily be explained in superhero fiction#common plot elements and there is plenty of space to do so. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 10:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    As an addendum, for consensus purposes I also support a merge to Superhero fiction until it can become developed enough for a split, if ever. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've asked Wikiproject Comics to come and improve the article during this discussion. Jclemens ( talk) 05:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep or merge to Superhero#Minority superheroes (that section might have to be renamed to something like Superhero#Social concerns though). I can see this as a notable and encyclopedic topic, but the article is currently not long enough to need a stand-alone article. – sgeureka t• c 10:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Sgeureka that seems to be a completely different issue in that section though, being about diverse representation via superheroes (i.e. LGBT+ superheroes or superheroes with disabilities). This article however is supposedly to be about superheroes being discriminated against because they have superpowers, which both prior to substantial edits by TompaDompa overnight and since isn't supported with reliable sources. Rambling Rambler ( talk) 15:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Superhero fiction. I would love to have it as a separate article, but I can't find the necessary sources to keep it on its own. It would make sense to merge the content into the Superhero fiction article. There could be a section that can be created like "Common themes". Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 18:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    Blue Pumpkin Pie what search terms have you been using? I'd suggest using the incoming redirects as search terms. Jclemens ( talk) 19:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment More sources include Social Order and Authority in Disney and Pixar Films Deys & Parrillo, eds., 2021 ISBN 9781793622112, p. 164:

    The Incredibles reframes the exploration of the proper repositories of power and responsibility that occurs in other superhero franchises. In The Avengers (Whedon 2012 ) universe, the political fallout from civilian casualties in Lagos prompts the Sokovia Accords, which brings superheroes under the auspices and discipline of a panel of the United Nations. The Keene Act (1977) prohibits vigilantism in Watchmen (Snyder et. al. 2009 ). There are significant parallels in the X-Men franchise, where prohibition of mutants drives the primary narrative. The television series The Boys (Kripke 2019 ) features superpowered individuals selected to be part of The Seven who do not work for the government but for a private corporation, Vought International.

    Jclemens ( talk) 19:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    What does that have to do with the topic of the article under discussion— discrimination against superheroes? Or perhaps more to the point: what is your conception of what the topic of the article actually is? TompaDompa ( talk) 20:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    Go look at the article talk page; you'll see it's been renamed at least twice, being previously known as Registration acts (Comics) and Registration Acts (Comics) before landing at this title. You yourself edited out a ton of content about those topics--mutant regitration, Sokovia Accords, Keene act, etc. Neither you nor the nominator appear to understand that the topic this article is fictional legal discrimination against superpowered individuals. Zxcvbnm, participating here, initiated the second move that seems to have obfuscated the topic for you. To reiterate, the concept of legal discrimination against superheroes is absolutely notable, being discussed by multiple RS'es under the various instantiations of this concept in at least four separate fictional franchises (Incredibles, Watchmen, Marvel/X-Men comics, MCU). Jclemens ( talk) 21:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
    It was last moved because the scope was, at least at the time and at least by those involved in the discussion, not understood to be superhero registration acts, specifically. The nominator described it as discrimination by the public against superheroes, which is also not the same thing as legal discrimination. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I added the following to the article, which was removed in what appears to be an absence of good faith comprehension of the source provided:
A number of fictional superhero universes contain stories about discrimination against superheroes in the form of Registration Acts, fictional legislative bills which, when passed into law, enforce the regulation of extra-legal vigilante activity vs. criminal activity, or the mandatory registration of superpowered individuals with the government. [1] For example, in the alternate universe of the Watchmen, first published in 1986, a backlash against superheroes leads to the passage of the "Keene Act", a federal law that prohibits "costumed adventuring" except by superheroes working for the government. [1] A similar device was used in the Marvel Comics universe in the mid-2000s, where a "Superhero Registration Act" is passed, that requires superpowered individuals to not only register with the government, but to make themselves available to be drafted to respond to emergencies. [1]
I have restored the content, but since it exists whether it is in the article or not, it weighs into the question of whether this concept is well-supported enough to have an article, whether it is improperly removed from the article or not.
In addition, I note that Google Scholar returns dozens of articles on "Superhero registration" and discrimination. BD2412 T 21:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict) I looked at the source. I found where it talked about discrimination. I found where it talked about registration. I did not find any place where it designated registration a form of discrimination. I explained this in the edit summary. As I said to you, discrimination and backlash are not the same thing, [...] discrimination and regulation are not the same thing, and [...] discrimination and registration are not the same thing. If you're adding content to the article discrimination against superheroes, the content has to be about discrimination against superheroes. If you want to add content about backlash against superheroes, regulation of superhero activity, or superhero registration, you either need to find sources that say that these are forms of discrimination against superheroes or find some other article where the content is a better fit. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
(My response to you above also addresses this misunderstanding of the topic's focus vs. the article title.) Jclemens ( talk) 21:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
If the government passed a law requiring all gay people (and only gay people) to register with the government, you don't think that is discrimination without a source specifying that it is discrimination? In any case, the source provided, in your own words, "talked about discrimination" - against superheroes. If you think there is better content on this subject in the source, add that to the article. Removing the source from the article is dishonest. BD2412 T 21:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
For the purposes of what we write in WP:WikiVoice, specifically, it doesn't matter what I, or you, or any other editor thinks counts as discrimination (or indeed, does not); what matters is what the sources say. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Or we can acknowledge that the last renaming of the article appears to have seriously obfuscated the topic leading to many participants here talking past each other. Can we solve this entire problem by reverting the last move request? Jclemens ( talk) 22:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
That seems like a bad idea to me. The given reason for the last move was the old title not reflecting the scope—the idea was for the scope to be broader than registration. Legal perspectives on superheroes, Legal issues surrounding superheroes, or something like that would probably be a better idea. Or we could find sources that explicitly label superhero registration as a form of discrimination. Making the article specifically about superhero registration would necessitate making other aspects out of scope. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm in favor of any sort of reframing or renaming that brings the topic back to what the RS'es actually say about superhero registration acts, where I contend there are sufficient RS'es to write a good article, rather than about discrimination against superheroes in general, where I haven't done any research whatsoever. Jclemens ( talk) 22:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
If that's the intended scope, I would suggest superhero registration acts, superhero registration, or registration of superheroes as better titles than the old one. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
The broader the scope, the more content we will find that supports it. How about Legal regulation of superheroes in fiction? BD2412 T 23:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
That's a possible variation on my suggested titles above. It would exclude the question about whether superheroes would be protected by laws against discrimination (which is something The Law of Superheroes discusses at some length), however. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
@ BD2412 @ TompaDompa how about a more list-oriented article around the title "Legal regulation of superheroes in fiction" and then as part of the introduction detail how legal regulation has at times been used for social commentary, with suitable use of sources to demonstrate critical analysis that has been done on some prominent examples?
Avoids the essay-like problems it had where there's little coherence and RS for "discrimination against superheroes", widens the potential scope that @ BD2412 has asked for in finding wider RS to support a standalone article, and for @ TompaDompa still keeps aspects of deeper critical analysis. Rambling Rambler ( talk) 23:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Regardless of other aspects, I think a list format should be avoided. Those tend to attract the addition of content that turns articles like this into horrible messes that need to be cleaned up down the line. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
That, I agree with. I have no problem with a carefully curated and sourced list within a larger piece, but the foundation has to be a solid textual description of the matter. BD2412 T 23:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Sorry, just for clarity do you mean you agree with what I proposed or Tompa's reply about lists? Rambling Rambler ( talk) 09:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Rambling Rambler: I mean that I agree with TompaDompa's reply. This should not primarily be a list. BD2412 T 16:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply
If the government passed a law requiring all gay people (and only gay people) to register with the government, you don't think that is discrimination without a source specifying that it is discrimination?
@ BD2412 I think the problem with the added passage as a list of examples is that lack of further third-party analysis as it does appear to be multiple forms of "registration" in multiple different contexts being lumped together. There's the sort that you're using an allegory for but then there are also "Registration Acts" more akin to being a professional in many contexts i.e. you have to be formally registered to practice superheroism.
This was one of the problems of the article before being reduced to a stub, it was an amalgamation of too many contexts that without presenting viewpoints from third party critical analysis looked like they were being suggested as similar acts of "discrimination". Rambling Rambler ( talk) 22:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
The act discussed in the context of the Marvel Universe specifically required registration irrespective of whether the person was practicing superheroism. The source provided analyzed it as the equivalent of a draft. BD2412 T 22:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Right, but that wouldn't necessarily meet the connotation for discrimination as the concept is generally understood to mean on its own. This is why we need good-quality sources demonstrating critical analysis of these items from the viewpoint as commentary for discrimination, being careful not to write in WikiVoice in the process, as otherwise it ends up being the problem article of before where it was all over the place assigning the definition of discrimination to every Registration Act mentioned. Rambling Rambler ( talk) 22:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
The previous names were too specific to be able to verify notability, making the name change for a broader subject the better alternative, but the current name change is too subjective. Some people may consider things discrimination. Maybe an X-Men story will interpret it as "discrimination", but not in Civil War, and a grey area in the Incredibles. If I had chosen to name it myself I would have renamed it to "Portrayal of Government in Superhero fiction" which would be a more neutral term.
I still think the best alternative is to merge with Superhero fiction. I looked into it and I have yet to see sources focus on any government portrayal or government acts in comics as a general topic. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 13:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply
The important thing, whatever approach is eventually settled upon, is that we follow the sources. The reason the state this article used to be in was such an unmitigated mess is that editors had not followed the sources but instead added content based on their own intuition about what belonged. TompaDompa ( talk) 14:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply
@ TompaDompa: I agree. if the original name/scope was retained, it would've been flagged for deletion earlier. But so far, I haven't seen any evidence that the topic (both original and new) are notable. Just a lot of synthesis to say the theme reoccurs. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 17:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply
If you can't see that the paragraph from Social Order and Authority in Disney and Pixar Films which I quoted above demonstrates that these various registration acts are considered and discussed as a whole, I'm not sure what it would take to convince you. Jclemens ( talk) 05:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC) reply
That paragraph is about superhero accountability (or as the source puts it, "the proper repositories of power and responsibility"), not registration acts as such. It continues Damage to citizens arising from the actions of The Seven is managed by media manipulation and settlements brokered by lawyers. Many of those with special abilities are portrayed as immoral and vicious. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC) reply
... and you don't think that final sentence bears on this topic? Hate and fear of mutants, supers, whatever, leading to legal discrimination, registration, relocation, whatever, are an ongoing metaphor for how humans treat people who are different. Whether the supers are coded as Jews, sexual minorities, or some other minority, the trope of hating those who want to help because they are different plays out in so many different comic book forms. It's a non-trivial focus of social commentary in comics. Jclemens ( talk) 20:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC) reply
I think the discussion thus far amply demonstrates the necessity of scope delineation coming from the sources, not editors. There are several different possible topics here that are related, broadly overlap, and/or have fuzzy borders. We must not synthesize a topic but let the sources define it for us. To that end, and to avoid equivocation, the question must be: what do the sources say the topic is here? TompaDompa ( talk) 21:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC) reply
So we're agreed that there needs to be some sort of an article on these topics, and a thorough cataloguing of the sources should guide us. Now... has anyone but me brought any into this discussion? Would it not be better if this BEFORE-lacking AfD was ended so we can better hash this out on the talk page? Jclemens ( talk) 22:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't think it's self-evident that a stand-alone article is the right way to go, nor that the starting point should be the present article considering that the eventual scope might turn out to be very different indeed. I categorically disagree with the idea that there needs to be anything. I don't understand why you think ending the AfD discussion would be preferable—discussion here certainly has greater visibility, and there is no guarantee that talk page discussion would be more fruitful (in my experience, it often isn't). Kicking this can down the road because of a presumption that a proper scope can in theory be created seems like a recipe for ending up back here in a few years with no progress done whatsoever—even if there is genuine concerted effort to come up with a well-defined scope based on the sources, consensus may not be reached. For that matter, I don't think the outcome of this discussion is a foregone conclusion—there are reasonable arguments that what content can be properly sourced would be a better fit for some other article, i.e. merged (and the suggestion to draftify is not without merit either). Come to think of it, I think a split discussion down the line on the talk page of a more high-profile article (assuming that such content is merged there and then—eventually—substantially expanded) would be more likely to be productive. Superhero fiction has been suggested as a possible merge target. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Oh, and to answer your question: no, I don't think the story portraying individuals with superpowers as flawed (or outright bad) people is relevant to the topic of in-universe discrimination against superheroes, and I think the suggestion that it would be is nonsensical. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ a b c Daily, James; Davidson, Ryan (2012). The Law of Superheroes. Avery. ASIN  B007T99LK0.

List of Hatsune Miku: Colorful Stage! characters

List of Hatsune Miku: Colorful Stage! characters (  | 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:Gamecruft, un-encyclopedic excessively detailed. (Although the move from the game article to a separate page was justified) IgelRM ( talk) 14:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of animal superheroes

List of animal superheroes (  | 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)

While this subject probably passes WP:LISTN, this page is in such a poor state that it probably can't be salvaged without nuking it and starting over. It only cites one source (which is an unreliable WP:VALNET source) and it seems to indiscriminately list characters with no semblance of objective inclusion criteria (by what criteria can Aslan and Diddy Kong be considered "superheroes"??). If this subject is to have an article, it really should be written from scratch later down the line because this page is currently entirely original research. Di (they-them) ( talk) 05:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Clifford (character)

Clifford (character) (  | 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 WP:GNG. Article relies on references to unreliable sources, Plus it is written in a fan's point of view. Babybunny2007 ( talk) 02:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Malcolm Collett

Malcolm Collett (  | 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 WP:GNG. Mostly self-authored by the subject ( User:Ideation269), who acknowledges himself on the talk page that most of this information is unverifiable. Whatever sources are provided are routine, and not independent sigcov. Jdcooper ( talk) 02:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.glenbow.org/collections/search/findingAids/archhtm/riveredge.cfm#series5 ? ? No dead link ✘ No
https://archives.banffcentre.ca/list?q=%7B!mlt+qf=title,topic+mintf=1+mindf=1%7Ddescriptions30462&p=1&mlt=Film+maker+Milton+Fruchtman+pioneers+new+directions+at+Banff+Centre+%5BPhoto:+Milton+Fruchtman+and+George+Moore%5D&ps=20 Yes Yes No Search results page for Paul D. Fleck Library and Archives and fails verification ✘ No
https://www.surrey.ca/arts-culture/surrey-art-gallery/exhibitions/animatoon-history-of-animated-film-malcolm-collett No No No Collett listed a s curator of free City of Surrey ehibition from 1980 ✘ No
https://www.nfb.ca/film/the-snow-war/ Yes Yes No listing of film The Snow War . Dont see any mationo of Collett ✘ No
https://www.estellesalata.ca/?page_id=267 ? ? No dead link ✘ No
https://www.elliotlake.ca/en/recreation-and-culture/our-town-banner-project.aspx?_mid_=79260#Malcolm-Collett-Sherriff-Creek No No No mention of banner project entry at The City of Elliot Lake ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20230701192620/https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b799ab762 ? ? ? Page won't load. ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
  • Weak Delete. Source assessment by WomenArtistUpdates is totally correct. The glenbow.org dead link source is archived at [1] and I don't find the name "Collett" in it. The estellesalata.ca dead link source is archived at [2] and is not independent (Estelle Selata is listed as a co-writer of the film) and not significant (only five short sentences). The bfi.org link did load for me, and it is just a directory listing that does not provide significant coverage. I have not been able to find any additional sources. I am saying "weak delete" as finding WP:SIGCOV sources on an artist working in the 1970s and 1980s is always more of a challenge than something more WP:RECENT. Elspea756 ( talk) 17:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Chickenpox (South Park)

Chickenpox (South Park) (  | 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)

Only two sources, which do not appear to qualify as SIGCOV. There does not seem to be a justification based on notability as on why this episode should have a separate article (i.e. it could also be redirected to South Park (season 2). Stanley Joseph Wilkins ( talk) 05:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. As said above, it may be WP:RS but two sources does not make it a WP:SIGCOV

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to sign any comments you make in an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. Two sources can be sigcov, FWIW. The AV club piece is quite extensive and the other two sources are less so but are fine. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 14:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie

Gabby's Dollhouse: The Movie (  | 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)

Lacking significant coverage per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY 2008 20:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 21:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete It is generally unwise to assume that a film that is still in production will be notable when/if it is publicly released. In particular, the WP:NFF guidelines state: "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." This does not seem to be the case. It also states: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines..." I think it is clear that these criteria have not been met in this case. Of course the editors can retain a draft or the article could be draftified, but it is not suitable for main space. Lamona ( talk) 23:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse ( talk) 22:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comics and animation proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Templates for discussion

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Comics_and_animation&oldid=1237967395"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE