Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation

Shortcuts

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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation/archive

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

Ken Kimmelman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non notable filmmaker. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Laundry list of awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New York. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dinowars

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only review I found is this one by Comics Bulletin: [1]. It alone is not enough for WP:GNG.

Note: I don't think redirection per WP:AtD is appropriate in this case. Instead, Dinowars should be a disambiguation page: 1 link to the comic and the other to video game DinoCity (Japanese title Dinowars). Mika1h (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Philippines, and Texas. Mika1h (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Paradise

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to meet notability requirements; it relies solely on two citations from YouTube and IMDb, and the Reception section only covers audience reception from IMDb. No results were found during my attempt to search for reliable sources. SleepyRedHair (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ObserveOwl (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glitch Productions. I've failed to find independent significant coverage. ObserveOwl (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Jefferson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources. Only external link is IMDb. User:Tankishguy talk :) say hi 21:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. User:Tankishguy talk :) say hi 21:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be worth noting that the article title probably should be Stacey Gregg (the page with that name has been deleted a few times previously). Don't think she was ever known as Stacy (without the e). She was also known for roles in the US as Stacey Maxwell, eg in The Virginian, The Monkees and Batman. In the UK she's known for roles in Crossroads https://www.newspapers.com/image/893742133 and playing Sandy in Grease alongside Richard Gere eg https://www.newspapers.com/image/840906998 There's a few more hits at https://www.newspapers.com/search/results/?keyword=%22Stacey+Gregg%22++&region=gb-eng worth checking the British Newspaper Archive as well, see also this two-page articles from the TV Times in 1971 (page 8-9) https://mcmweb.co.uk/tvtimes/1971/Nov%206th%201971.pdf Piecesofuk (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flower (skunk from Bambi)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as a standalone character - the sources are either simple routine listings or not about the character at all - the only source that appears to be is really just an interview with the voice actor. Unable to find anything significant on a BEFORE. Flower (Bambi) is already a redirect, and this article title is not viable as one. CoconutOctopus talk 12:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and Disney. CoconutOctopus talk 12:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Flower (Bambi) is effectively salted. If this afd results in a keep, I suggest histmerge into the redirect and unlock the article. – robertsky (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is kept as a redirect, I suggest histmerge as well but maintain the salt. – robertsky (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beeblebrox, the admin protecting the redirect at the proper name, is still active. Since this is editing around a protected redirect, I recommend it be speedily draftified with no redirect while we decide if we want it or not. Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list of Bambi characters or such. Right now this is just a plot summary+list of apperances, no evidence he meets WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced the article title is a valid redirect, and the shortened form already is one CoconutOctopus talk 16:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current article is nothing but plot summaries of the films and a list of "appearances" that is little more than trivia, and searches are not turning up enough significant coverage in reliable sources for the character to pass the WP:GNG. Flower (Bambi) already redirects to the first film, and I cannot imagine this particular title being a plausible enough search term for a redirect to actually be useful in this case. Rorshacma (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previews of the Google Scholar search look pretty promising with regard to non-trivial coverage, but I have no access to full articles. Has anyone checked them out yet when drawing their conclusions? Daranios (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through what I could access in the Wikipedia Library, most of them are brief mentions of Flower in the context of "Bambi, with his friends Flower and Thumper... etc." However, "When will my reflection show who I am inside?": Queering Disney Fantasy" has significant coverage of Flower as a queer character and "Man is in the Forest: Humans and Nature in Bambi and The Lion King" has a shorter paragraph about it as well. I only looked through the first 1.5 pages of the search results though, so someone with more free time might be able to find more. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this, @Schützenpanzer! I actually just earned/gained access to the Wikipedia Library. Appreciated! Sven's carrots (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First contributor/author of this. Looking at the history of the article... it was reviewed 25 days ago by a Wikipedian (presumably) as a part of New Pages Patrol. Shortly after said review, the article got significantly reduced down to a vignette or digest level, most likely why it got decked with the plot summary, notability, and urge to delete templates/notices. I can restore this article back to the state before review time. Give about 24 hours. Sven's carrots (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore is done with a few updates. Sven's carrots (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nioh 3

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification, WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Fails WP:GNG Is WP:TOOSOON. Pointless to return to draft, easily recreated whenever it becomes notable, and that will be significantly different froths version 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Visual arts, Comics and animation, and Games. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nioh#Sequel or Nioh 2 and expand accordingly. Far too soon for its own article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CGMagazine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NWEB. I'm not seeing other significant coverage apart from the news story about the site moving towns: [2]. Mika1h (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Video games, Comics and animation, Games, Technology, and Websites. Mika1h (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of sigcov in itself. Go D. Usopp (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom, looks like a run-of-the-mill magazine and WP is not a database. IgelRM (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Chip's Revenge

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a future television episode. Has no coverage on the episode itself and is little more than an article shell. One of the three sources is a forum. Could reasonably be made into a draft as a potential WP:ATD. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Disney. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as pointless. The episode airs in four days, at which time there will either be coverage, or not. Starting this now guarantees that the notability will change halfway through the seven-day window. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't done enough research to determine whether this should be kept, but if this isn't kept, I would suggest redirecting to Big City Greens season 4#ep101 over deletion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

many sources exist 2600:4040:2838:FA00:802D:E325:FCEE:4CB6 (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cutie Mark Crusaders

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently created from redirect. Which is where, imo, it belongs; not sufficiently notable for standalone article. TheLongTone (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Skynxnex (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters#The Cutie Mark Crusaders per nom. Nathannah • 📮 20:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some sources below. Could you take another look? Thank you! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The strongest 3 sources are given below.

Leslie Salas, Lorin Shahinian, ed. (2024-01-11). The Animated Dad: Essays on Father Figures in Cartoon Television. McFarland. ISBN 978-1-4766-5162-0.

"The Cutie Mark Crusaders work as deuteragonists in comparison to Twilight Sparkle and her friends. They are a trio of fillies trying to get their cutie marks, the symbols located on an Equestrian's flank that dictates what their special talent is and which appears in adolescence. The group consists of Applejack's little sister Applebloom, Rarity's little sister Sweetie Belle, and Rainbow Dash's foster sister Scootaloo. Due to their shared parental connections to the main cast, there was little examination of them (save Scootaloo in note 5). While this comment mainly refers to the intended audience of young children, it is also geared toward a signifcant portion of the Brony audience that include individuals on the autism spectrum. [...] Scootaloo herself has symbiotic parents, as shown in the episode "The Last Crusade." Both work as "creature catchers", the Equestrian version of zoologists, and, while very different in looks, largely coalesce in their rought-and-tumble personalities."

Snider, Brandon T. (2017). My Little Pony. Volume II: Friendship Is Magic: The Elements of Harmony: The Official Guidebook. New York: Little, Brown Books for Young Readers. ISBN 978-0-316-43197-2.

"Everypony is on a journey, but it's difficult for young ponies to be patient. All Apple Bloom, Scootaloo, and Sweetie Belle wanted to do was figure out who they were and what they were destined to do. They were desperate to discover their hidden talent, hoping a cutie mark would reveal itself and change their lives forever. Instead of worrying about it alone, they came together to form the ultimate support team: THE CUTIE MARK CRUSADERS. After a series of trials, the Crusaders successfully acquired their cutie marks and set out to prove their worth. Receiving a cutie mark doesn't mean they're done figuring everything out, of course. It simply means they're energized and on the right path. These feisty fillies are passionate about helping other young foals figure out their paths."

"Apple Bloom, Scootaloo, and Sweetie Belle hoped that by trying a bunch of different things together, they'd get their cutie marks lickety-split! So the three friends formed a secret club called the Cutie Mark Crusaders, whose members were dedicated to trying as many things as possible. Although the fillies have tried many diverse activities, like baking and magic, their cutie marks have yet to reveal themselves. Unfortunately, some intolerant ponies have mocked the young trio for not being able to find their proper vocations yet. Thankfully, wise ponies such as Princess Celestia have encouraged the girls to not lose hope and to keep experiencing as many things as possible."

Blue, Jen A. (2013-08-31). My Little Po-Mo: Unauthorized Critical Essays on My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic Season One. pp. 134–139.

"This is true on a trivial level; unlike the main characters, who are young adults with jobs, the Cutie Mark Crusaders are little girls of roughly the same age as the target audience of the show (perhaps slightly older, given the pubescent overtones surrounding getting one's cutie mark). Adult fans, on the other hand, frequently express difficulty identifying with the CMC. I can understand that difficulty, to an extent. The Cutie Mark Crusaders take screen time away from the Mane Six. Their stories frequently require the Mane Six to be “useless,” so that the CMC can retain the focus, which makes sense as adults frequently are useless within a child’s frame of reference, but nonetheless can feel like the series “disrespecting” its main characters in order to focus on one-off background characters. However, I think the anti-CMC portion of the fandom misses an essential feature of the CMC. The CMC, you see, are picked on and disliked by their peers. Later episodes show that they are easily swept up by their enthusiasms, and gifted with mechanical and technical tasks. And most of all, they are seeking to establish their identity by enthusiastically exploring their interests. To put it bluntly, they’re geeks. I argued back in Chapter 7 that Equestria is a nation of geeks, but the CMC are the stereotypical “geeks among geeks.”

GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @TheLongTone: I noticed that you put the AfD notice on the wrong person's talk page; I was the person who created the article, not the person who created the redirect. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination process is automatedTheLongTone (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GregariousMadness The second source, being an official guidebook that says it is licensed by Hasbro on the back, is not INDEPENDENT. The third source was published by CreateSpace, which means it is self-published; I see no indication that Jen A. Blue is a subject-matter expert here. Do you have any better sources to supplement these in your WP:THREE? Toadspike [Talk] 03:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here's another source. TulsaKids is a monthly magazine with an editorial board, see [3].

Rittler, Tara (2017-12-19). "Cupcakes for Pinkie Pie: Lessons learned from Season One of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic". TulsaKids. Retrieved 2025-06-01.

"“Call of the Cutie” marks the genesis of “The Cutie Mark Crusaders,” three young ponies who don’t yet have their cutie marks. [...] Apple Bloom and the other two ponies become instant friends and form a secret club, “The Cutie Mark Crusaders,” vowing to help one another on the quest to discover their passions and earn their cutie marks. While “Call of the Cutie” offers a nice lesson in being patient and not stressing out when you don’t know what you’re supposed to do with your life (a feeling I am all too familiar with!), “The Show Stoppers” has a moral that is even more compelling, I think. In this one, the Cutie Mark Crusaders further their quest by enrolling in a talent show, deciding to put on an amazing play. While it is obvious to everyone else which production role each of the Crusaders should assume, the young ponies can’t seem to realize that, if they just slow down and think about it, their special talents are already manifesting themselves. Scootaloo rides a scooter like no one else; Sweetie Belle can compose music and has a beautiful voice; Apple Bloom is a genius at construction. But when dividing up the tasks of singer, set/costume designer and choreographer, Sweetie Belle announces that she wants to do costumes because that’s what her older sister is good at. Scootaloo wants to do lead vocals because they’re performing a rock ballad, and presumably, that’s where the glory lies. Apple Bloom knows she’s not much of a dancer but does like karate, so her dance moves are all kicks and punches. The show is a disaster, predictably, but they end up getting the award for “Best Comedy Act.” Sadly, the Cutie Mark Crusaders decide that their true talent must be comedy, meaning that they will have to keep waiting for their cutie marks a while longer.

And another one, from SF Weekly (and also the author of Ponyville Confidential)

Connelly, Sherilyn (2012-04-25). "My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, Season 1, Episode 23". SF Weekly. Retrieved 2025-06-05.

"In their latest attempt to earn their cutie marks, Apple Bloom, Sweetie Belle, and Scootaloo learn something that Stan, Kyle, Eric, and Kenny would later discover: They should never have gone ziplining. Spike had told them it was awesome, which just figures. No worse for the wear (and covered in tree sap for neither the first nor last time), they decide to ask to older ponies how they got their cutie marks. Scootaloo insists they should start with Rainbow Dash, her clearly being the coolest pony ever. On their way to find Rainbow Dash they collide with Apple Bloom's older sister Applejack, who's happy to tell her own origin story, much to Scootaloo's annoyance. [...] Sweetie Belle and Apple Bloom find the story to be touching, but Scootaloo doesn't care for it. I see the Cutie Mark Crusaders as an audience surrogate in this episode. In my experience, two out of three new viewers of MLP:FIM will accept the show's tone and world view, while the third will find it too earnest and unironic. And that's fine. To each their own, and no show is for everybody. (I also adore Mad Men -- I thought last Sunday's episode was just astonishing -- but to some people who are much smarter than me, it's unpalatable.) The Crusaders' next unintended stop is Fluttershy."

In addition, Jen A. Blue (formerly Jed A. Blue) and her book have been cited in multiple reliable publications in journals (see [4]), for example, in:

Crome, A. (2014). Reconsidering religion and fandom: Christian fan works in My Little Pony fandom. Culture and Religion, 15(4), 399–418. doi:10.1080/14755610.2014.98423
Shoujo Versus Seinen? Address and Reception in Puella Magi Madoka Magica (2011) (Catherine Butler)
My Little Pony: A transcultural phenomenon. (Ewan Kirkland)

so I believe she can be used as WP:EXPERTSPS. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 03:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really disagree that three citations is sufficient evidence of wide citation to meet the high bar of EXPERTSPS. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Wikipedians generally use 3 or more citations to determine notability, so how is it any different to determine whether the book is reliable if it has been cited in multiple peer-reviewed journals and publications? And the book has been cited in 4 peer-reviewed publications, not 3, per this link [5], including The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture, Journal of Popular Television, Culture and Religion: An Interdisciplinary Journal, and Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies. The author herself has been cited more times than that. For example, Shoujo Versus Seinen? Address and Reception in Puella Magi Madoka Magica cites Blue, and the paper is from the peer-reviewed journal Children's Literature in Education. It makes no sense to dismiss this source when multiple highly reputable peer-reviewed journals agree that the source is usable. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 16:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Cutie mark. There's clearly something here, I'm not convinced that it can't be covered adequately here, the excerpts above do not seem super substantive. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A couple more sources:

Alvarez, Daniel. "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic 'One Bad Apple' Review". Unleash The Fanboy. Archived from the original on 2021-07-28.

Sims, Chris (2013-08-19). "The Cutie Mark Crusaders meddle with forces they do not understand (again) in 'My Little Pony Micro-series' #7". Comics Alliance.

GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 08:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Would these sources be enough to re-consider a keep? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 08:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think that a stand-alone article is merited here, honestly. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GregariousMadness has provided examples of secondary source coverage, and there is currently a full article which is more substantive than 90% of other articles on Wikipedia. Because the subject matter is notable and the alternatives are either keep or merge, the question therefore becomes, would this subject be better served by a standalone article? Reading through the list article and the Cutie Mark article, I think that a merge would result in WP:UNDUE concerns and a redirect would result in quality portions of an article rooted in substantive coverage, being lost. Keep. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 14:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, virtually all of the content in this article is sourced to unreliable FANCRUFT sources (Equestria Daily, Blue 2014, Unleash the Fanbo), that I don't think there's actually too much to merge here. The other RS's don't have significant coverage of the 'Cutie Mark Crusaders' as a group- SF weekly has one sentence of coverage ("I see the Cutie Mark Crusaders as an audience surrogate in this episode."), and only really discuss the topic in the context of a couple episodes. I'm not seeing significant analysis of the group as a group to suggest that a stand alone article is merited here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GregariousMadness' sources show that the subject is clearly notable and has GNG and I agree with the above that a merge would be problematic. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Komiks

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a foreign dictionary. ~~Komics (TV series)~~ Komiks (TV series) should be moved here. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~: I created the page as a redirect in 2008 because "komiks" in Philippine English refers to Philippine comics (ref. ABS-CBN, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Rappler) However, after 17 years, someone changed it to a disambiguation page, adding Polish comics. While "komiks" also means comics in Polish, I am unsure if this applies to other English language variants. ~~If the evidence supports that "komiks" refers to Polish comics in other English variants, keep them. Otherwise, it should revert to the original redirect for Philippine comics.~~ --Jojit (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed my opinion to just keep it because "komiks" can now refer to three things here in English Wikipedia. Hence, it makes sense to have a disambiguation page for "komiks". --Jojit (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The redlink in the nomination is undoubtedly a typo; the nominator appears to be proposing that Komiks (TV series) is the main topic for "Komiks" should this disambiguation page be deleted. (At this time I offer no opinion on any of this.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know nothing much about comics or Philippine media, but I note that there are a large number of articles linking to Komiks, some of which seem to refer to the TV show and some to Philippine comics as a genre. Some serious sorting out is needed here, whatever the outcome of the discussion. In the meantime I've added the TV series to the dab page, which seems to have been a serious omission. PamD 07:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the TV series. None of the two other meanings are words in English and should therefore be ignored, but the TV show has the word as its name. Pepparkaksgubbe (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more input from experienced editors. Is the article suitable to be kept outright, turned into a disambiguation page, or something else?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comics and animation proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Templates for discussion