Edge Rewrite
pun Source code View original
Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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

[edit]

Ma Hunkel

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ma Hunkel (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 propose merging to Red Tornado; I'm not sure the character would pass WP:GNG all on her own and her page is nothing but plot summaries and a list of her appearances in other media.

To be specific, there's two ways to merge the characters; one is to treat the Red Tornado page as a composite page but I'm not sure how relevant she is to have such a weight. Another is to add her to "Other versions" under a sub-heading of "Ma Hunkel" that basically has the intro,some of the fictional biography, and powers and abiltiies. Granted, the Red Tornado page itself also needs quite a bit of re-tweaking. CosmicMordecai (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply


EDIT: I did not realize this page has already been nominated for deletion prior (it seems to have been for simply that instead of merging). So in merging this, the Red Tornado page will also have to be tweaked to include Ma Hunkel more prominently.CosmicMordecai (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

I changed my mind on this. I acted too prematurely not knowing the sources too deeply and forgot to check if the page has been through a deletion process before. CosmicMordecai (talk)

Red Tornado (character)

[edit]
Red Tornado (character) (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 propose redirecting to Red Tornado; This page here is very redundant and is a good example of a WP:CFORK. This page seems to exists so somehow, the second version can take precedent and for Ma Hunkel to be somewhere that calls her "Red Tornado". CosmicMordecai (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Sargon the Sorcerer

[edit]
Sargon the Sorcerer (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 propose redirecting to List of DC Comics characters: S because no version of the character could pass WP:GNG as far as I'm aware of. Like many pages, it is just a list of plot summaries and nothing establishes notability. CosmicMordecai (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

EDIT: I made spelling mistake and made a edit to fix that mistake only.

Alex Bale

[edit]
Alex Bale (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 person doesn't have the WP:SIGCOV or history of prestigious awards to establish notability. Existing sources are niche film festival sites, primary, or self published. I was unable to locate coverage in sources that would be considered reliable enough to meet criteria for WP:CREATIVE. A high follower count on social media does not mean inherent notability, at least in my understanding. JesseL0vesT0ast (May the toast be with you.) (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Cricket's Kapowie

[edit]
Cricket's Kapowie (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 propose redirecting to Big City Greens season 2 because it seems to have only received WP:ROUTINE coverage, mostly due to this being the first episode of the second season. Only cites a handful of sources, most of which are not directly about the episode in question. Nothing else found via a quick WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Strong Oppose This article is pretty notable to be in Wikipedia, as it is the first episode of season 2 of Big City Greens. Loc863 (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Kroloteans

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

Another non-notable fictional race found on the List of alien races in DC Comics. There are no viable sources in the article currently - outside of the issues of comics they appeared in, there is only trivial coverage in sources of dubious reliability. Searches are turning up no significant coverage in non-official DC sources, just minor plot summaries on user generated fan wikis and non-reliable sources. The topic fails the WP:GNG and the utter lack of coverage in reliable sources makes preserving via a merge inappropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

15 (software engineer)

[edit]
15 (software engineer) (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)

Redirect to 15.ai. Personal life section is primary sourced fluff, everything else is better covered in the website article. No indication of independent notability. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Keep. Passes WP:BASIC; independent notability is met as the subject is a primary focus of both the articles 15.ai and Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal, both of which have plenty of sources that are not currently used in the nominated article. The article is incomplete, but the problems are entirely WP:SURMOUNTABLE. –GM 16:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal is clearly a subtopic of 15.ai, I'm not convinced it needs to be a standalone article (at the very least it needs a hatchet taken to it to pare it down from 80,000 bytes). This is not is convincing case for independent notability. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 23:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    What?! That topic is clearly not a subtopic of 15.ai. It easily passes WP:GNG, has WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a long period of time, has multiple sections and paragraphs that don't involve 15.ai at all, and has an entire Legacy section filled with WP:RS talking about how important it was in the general landscape of video games and NFTs. Why in the world would that article be a subtopic of 15.ai as opposed to, say, a subtopic of Troy Baker or a subtopic of NFT controversies? The article itself is GA quality, so I don't know where you're getting this notion at all that the article needs to be rewritten. Proposing that the nominated article and the whole Voiceverse article be merged into 15.ai is seriously baffling and raises the question of whether you actually read all of the article's sources in full (I did). –GM 00:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Redirect to 15.ai cause there really isnt much to the article that isnt already discussed at 15.ai, tbh the pseudonymous nature of the individual is going to make quality blp sources extremely difficult and a lot of the sources used i think currently at least border on WP:BLPGOSSIP. i do want to also note an article about this individual was already blanked and redirected once before and i think the reasoning why is still a solid argument for the redirect today [1] Ibnqirtaiba (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC) — Confirmed sockpuppet Ibnqirtaiba is a confirmed sockpuppet of BrocadeRiverPoems, see investigation. reply
  • Redirect to 15.ai, the subject does not have independent notability as the majority of the sources are about the website and not the individual themselves. MidnightMayhem (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep due to WP:CREATIVE #3, subject created 15.ai which has been primary subject of multiple international independent periodical articles [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and more. I don't see why independent notability is important that it mandates a redirect, there does not seem to be official policy that require this. We have articles Speechify and Cliff Weitzman, who is notable for nothing outside of Speechify. Arguably Weitzman's article should be a redirect more than 15's because 15.ai's reach was much wider than Speechify. Bronymike2010 (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Bronymike2010 see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and WP:NBLP. Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Issac I Navarro That's where WP:CREATIVE comes from on the same page, an additional criteria along with the regular notability criteria. Independent notability is moot because subject qualifies CREATIVE #3, warranting an article. Bronymike2010 (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Bronymike2010, and must also pass WP:GNG.
As GM mentions below part of the claim is WP:BLP1E Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Issac I Navarro: No, I'm saying that I disagree with the WP:BLP1E argument. The subject does pass WP:GNG. It's just a matter of improving the article, which I unfortunately cannot because I am blocked due to edit warring. Once the block is over, though, I'll make sure to improve it substantially. –GM 08:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Fully understood. I was pointing out to Bronymike2010, the rationale and policy/guidelines being cited. Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Issac I Navarro: No problem. I only wanted to clarify because I saw that you were repeating the same argument above, hoping you'd reconsider. –GM 08:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
What sources are you looking at that illustrate that this is not a case of BLP1E? Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Issac I Navarro: Here's a sample of multiple WP:RS showing coverage occurring at different periods for different reasons:
  • Feng, Bai (March 15, 2020). "模型参数过亿跑不动？看MIT小哥，少量数据完成高质量文本转语音！" [Struggling with Models with Over 100 Million Parameters? See How an MIT Student Achieved High‑Quality Text‑to‑Speech with Minimal Data!]. QQ News (in Chinese). XinZhiYuan. Archived from the original on February 27, 2025. Retrieved February 22, 2025. (pre-2021 15.ai)
  • Chandraseta, Rionaldi (January 21, 2021). "Generate Your Favourite Characters' Voice Lines using Machine Learning". Towards Data Science. Archived from the original on January 21, 2021. Retrieved December 18, 2024. (during operation in 2021)
  • Wright, Steve (January 17, 2022). "Troy Baker-backed NFT company admits to using content without permission". Stevivor. Archived from the original on January 17, 2022. Retrieved October 5, 2025. (Voiceverse scandal)
  • Abisola, Shojobi (January 3, 2025). "The MIT Project That Paved Way For Modern Voice AI". Independent. Archived from the original on February 27, 2025. Retrieved February 27, 2025. (post-15.ai)
  • Irpan, Alex (July 21, 2025). "Brony Musicians Seize The Means of Production: My Eyewitness Account to BABSCon 2025". Alex Irpan. Archived from the original on July 30, 2025. Retrieved October 1, 2025. (fandom impact and involvement; the author is a Senior Research Scientist at Google Deepmind with over 26,000 citations on Google Scholar with an h-index of 31(!), so WP:EXPERTSPS applies)
–GM 08:16, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speechify and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Weitzman have been nominated for deletion. Madeleine (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Neutral/Week merge Merge/Redirect per nom and Skyshifter. I am not seeing how this subject would warrant it's own page. That being said, I would prefer a merger over a redirect, as there does appear to be some useful and encyclopedic content. Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    @Issac I Navarro: The above arguments are essentially invoking WP:BLP1E, in that the claim is that the subject is only notable for having created 15.ai. In my opinion, WP:BLP1E is inapplicable here. The subject is covered in connection with both having created and operated 15.ai and separately for a substantial and well-documented role in the Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal that is notable enough to have its own article. BLP1E directly states Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. which isn't true here. –GM 07:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    After reading the sources that GM has pointed out (above), I have striked my redirect. I have a very week stance on a merger due to the bio may pass WP:GNG. Though, I wouldn't be opposed to a merge. Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    @Issac I Navarro: I don't think a merge is appropriate here, as it would then be grounds for WP:SPLITTING again as the 15.ai article should be focused on the website. The Background section is already long as it is and largely focuses on the technology behind what made the website unique. It wouldn't make sense to merge only to include additional information about its creator irrelevant to the website when we could easily fix it by having a separate article per WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPINOFF for this: the main situation where spinoff articles become necessary is when the expansion of a section creates an undue weight problem for the article. –GM 08:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    @Issac I Navarro: Respectfully disagree that a merge is preferable to a redirect. Note the above blocked confirmed sockpuppet User:Ibnqirtaiba removed over half of the content originally in the article, so its current state cannot reliably be consulted as its basis. With the sources above, there is more than likely content to be added back that would not belong to potential merge targets. WP:MERGE advises against merging where the separate topics can be expanded into standalone articles, and the sourcing presented above establishes that this one can, under both WP:GNG and WP:NCREATOR criterion 3. Madeleine (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep per above arguments. Subject meets WP:GNG per above sources, and WP:NCREATOR makes it cut and dried. Merging is not appropriate per GM. At least one editor has expressed intent in improving the article after the AfD ends, so redirecting is less appropriate than keeping. WP:NCREATOR expressly permits coverage of a creator's significant work, rather than requiring every article to be a conventional profile of the creator; particularly important in the case of a pseudonymous creator.
BLP1E applies only when all its conditions are satisfied, beginning with reliable sources covering the person only in connection with one event. The cited coverage above spans the development and operation of 15.ai, the 2022 Voiceverse incident, and retrospective discussion of the project's influence. The sourcing signifies that this is a sustained body of work and its consequences, than a person briefly caught in a singular news event. Madeleine (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Matthew Cable

[edit]
Matthew Cable (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. There are 2 (or more) equally valid merge targets, so I don't believe that redirecting or merging the character anywhere specific would help. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Chirpy

[edit]
Chirpy (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)

It lacks significant coverage from secondary sources. One of the sources does not work and I could not find any significant secondary coverage online. Jonah080 (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Cathexis (comics)

[edit]
Cathexis (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)

While going through the List of alien races in DC Comics during the concurrent AFD to see which entries actually have articles, I found several that don't appear to actually qualify for articles as they do not pass the WP:GNG, with this one being one of the more egregious examples. The only sources included outside of the three issues of the single storyline they appeared in are simply listicles or extremely brief (i.e. two sentences) plot summary, all from Comic Book Resources. Even if WP:VALNET was not an issue with those sources, they would still not actually qualify for being significant coverage sufficient for passing the WP:GNG. Searches are not bringing up any actual significant coverage in reliable sources regarding this obscure comic race - just user generated content on wikis or extremely brief mentions in plot summaries. Rorshacma (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Other deletions

[edit]

Comics and animation proposed deletions

[edit]

Categories for discussion

[edit]

Redirects for discussion

[edit]

Templates for discussion

[edit]
This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 November 5 § Redirect comics templates. (edit | history)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)reply

Propose merging Template:R comics with possibilities with Template:R with possibilities; Template:R comics from alternative name with Template:R from alternative name; Template:R comics to list entry with Template:R to list entry; Template:R comics from merge with Template:R from merge; Template:R comics from related word with Template:R from related word; and Template:R comics to section with Template:R to section, respectively.
Note that this isn't a proposal to merge all these templates into one huge template, but to merge the comics redirect templates into their non-comics equivalents. I think the comics redirect templates should be merged into their respectively similary titled templates, without the word 'comics' in them, because they otherwise serve similar purposes, and I don't see the point of them being separate. I'm open to the proposals of the templates without the word 'comics' in their titles having the {{{comics}}} parameter instead if that's what Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics and its participants want. I'm surprised these proposals weren't made sooner. I've deliberately excluded 'Template:R comics naming convention' from this proposal because it serves a specific purpose and because there's no non-comics-related template similar to that one. PK2 (talk; contributions) 12:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)reply

  • Comment: I've deliberately listed all the above templates in this one discussion because I don't see the point in having separate discussions for each of the respective comics redirect templates and their non-comics equivalents. PK2 (talk; contributions) 00:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)reply
@TadgStirkland401: The nominator wants to merge all the comics into the non-comics. I.e. merge the first with the second ("R comics with possibilities" with "R with possibilities"), the third with fourth ("R comics from alternative name" with "R from alternative name") and so on. Christian75 (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)reply
As of 2025-11-09 I feel that the proposal is clear enough (replace all the "R comics" templates with their regular counterparts), and I weak support because this also seems unnecessarily redundant to me. If anyone has a good reason for keeping them then I'd be interested to hear it! But my hunch is that it's just historical cruft. Hopefully an automated replacement can also automatedly "add {{WikiProject Comics}} to the talk page of the redirect" or whatever (if anyone actually cares about that; I don't really know) as well. Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)reply
  • Support per voidxor. Christian75 (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)reply
  • Support the actual intent here. This was mislisted as a single merge (i.e. to one template), when the intent is clearly to merge {{R comics with possibilities}} to {{R with possibilities}}, then separately merge {{R comics from alternative name}} to {{R from alternative name}}, and so on. This should be done unless there's a compelling reason we need to divide each of these "R with/from/to generic_maintenance_categorization" rcats into topical subdivisions, and that comics in particular should be one of those subdivisions. (Even if that's actually true in some case, it is not necessarily true for all of them.) We shold do all of these merges in absence of a strong showing that one or more should not be merged. This is basically useless micro-intersection, of a sort that badly mixes categorization types and purposes. The identification of something as a comics topic is already accomplished (and is a reader- as well as editor-facing matter) by comics topical categories of the usual sort. Meanwhile, "R with/from/to generic_maintenance_categorization" categories are maintenance only and just editor-facing (nor do these generally need to be topically split, since editors working on categorization of, and other maintenance pertaining to, redirects that go in such categories are doing so on a cross-topical basis. Another way of putting it is that a redir being from an alternative name (or whatever) and it also pertaining to comics is a trivial intersection and non-defining characteristic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)reply
    I've just clarified my proposal to request to merge the comics redirect templates into their regular non-comics equivalents. I've deliberately listed all the above templates in this one discussion because I don't see the point in having separate discussions for each of the respective comics redirect templates and their non-comics equivalents. PK2 (talk; contributions) 01:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)reply
Question to supports: You are all saying you support the nomination, but three of you said per "SMcCandlish" which (if I read correctly) isn't in support of continuing with the comic-specific categorization. So it would seem the intent here is to replace (or redirect), rather than merge any functionality. Gonnym (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)reply
Support, no need to differentiate FaviFake (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)reply
  • Only Support merging the comic variants of these R-cat templates into the corresponding general templates with matching names. For the avoidance of doubt, I Oppose merging the various R-cat templates that do not include the word comics. The proposal is badly worded and confusing at first glance. It would have been clearer if a separate proposal was made for each template that it was proposed to merge with its corresponding target template; as I interpret the proposal, it is only proposed to merge Template:R comics from merge into Template:R from merge, etc. This is not actually a proposal to merge all these templates together, even though it appears to be one based on the way the templates are listed. Hence my partial opposition. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)reply
    I've just clarified my proposal to request to merge the comics redirect templates into their regular non-comics equivalents. I've deliberately listed all the above templates in this one discussion because I don't see the point in having separate discussions for each of the respective comics redirect templates and their non-comics equivalents. PK2 (talk; contributions) 23:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)reply
  • Delete all the "redirect comics" after they have been replaces with the "normal" R-templates. My first vote was support, but it was unclear what I was supporting, but still per user:voidxor. strong oppose merging. Christian75 (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)reply
  • Support if I've understood correctly that this is fundamentally equivalent to replacing "R [media type] from [relationship between source and target article]", at least for those articles to do with comics. If we have "Redirect from alternative name", we don't need a more precise "Redirect from comic with alternative name", for example. I think I'm in agreement with BobKilcoyne. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)reply
  • Support per WP:NOPAGE Freddy[citation needed] 18:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG5536B 15:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)reply
  • Question - Will this have any effect on the 109,000 uses of {{R with possibilities}} other than to add that template to a few comics redirects? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)reply
  • Support. Daask (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)reply
  • Support mergers of 'R comics xyz' to equivalent 'R xyz' templates and categories. The duplicate 'comics' categories serve no useful purpose. There is no clear rationale for comics' special treatment and this is likely to lead to inconsistent tagging. Oppose adding 'comics' parameter as I have not seen any rationale for adding this. Overall, I support simplifying Rcats and not having a million ways to subcategorize them unless there is a meaningful benefit to maintenance or another aspect of the project. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Comics_and_animation&oldid=1367406570"