Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Tasks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MainTalkAssessmentParticipantsShowcaseTasksResourcesTemplatesHelpPortal

This is the a list of tasks that either need regular attention for WikiProject Animation.

To do list

[edit]

Cleanup listing

[edit]

A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Unreferenced BLPs

[edit]

This is the list of Unreferenced BLPs automatically generated by DASHBot.

There are no unreferenced BLPs tagged by Template:WikiProject Animation.

Requested articles

[edit]
Requested articles
Experimental animation
Films
The King's Beard, Timothy Tweedle the First Christmas Elf, The Return of the Prodigal Parrot [ru]
Television
Cyboars, Louie (animated show), Simsalagrimm, Brainphreak
People
Andrew Kepple, Chasen Kay, Vince Collins, Corin Hardy, Kondoh Akino
Studios
Studio CGI
edit


New articles

[edit]
New articles by topicNew articles (Animation)

The following articles have been identified by InceptionBot as potentially being within the scope of the project, based on the Animation ruleset. It is likely that some of them are false positives; please examine the log if you have any questions.

This page lists recently created Animation-related articles. Remember to nominate the best new articles at Template talk:Did you know so Wikipedia can highlight them on the main page.

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2024-11-17 19:23 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.
















Article alerts

[edit]

Articles for deletion

(11 more...)

Proposed deletions

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

(1 more...)

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

(14 more...)

Articles for creation

Deletion discussions

[edit]
To edit this section, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation
Professor Farnsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not an AfD i want to do. I absolutely love Futurama and it was one of my favorite comedy cartoons, but unfortunately, this character does not pass WP:GNG. Of the eight sources, none are independent and are only passing mentions, some don't even discuss him, at all. I tried doing a WP:BEFORE and i can't find anything that talks about him.

Again, i didn't want to do this, but i have to, there is no turning back from what i am doing, so i am doing the right thing to nominate this for AfD. Toby2023 (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch 07:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One example of a secondary source which does indeed talk about the character is "Catastrophic Future(s)", which on pp. 85-86 has significant analysis of the character and his role. A little less serious, The Mad Scientist Hall of Fame has a multi-page chapter on Farnsworth. Daranios (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I also love Futurama. Running my usual source check: Found one on ScreenRant to back up the family tree. My attempts to search on Google Scholar have been jammed by the existence of real scholar Charles Hubert Farnsworth. Trying again with "Professor Farnsworth" "Futurama" and getting a good number of hits: [1]. I believe enough sourcing exists to establish notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Okay, this Law Review article looks like it covers the Professor's adventures particularly. I put it as a source in the article because the abstract covers the basic facts of who Farnsworth is, but anyone who can get through that paywall could use it more extensively: Justin S. Wales. "FUTURLAWMA: 21st Century Solutions to 31st Century Problems". U. Miami L. Rev. (Abstract). 87. Retrieved November 17, 2024. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Okay, I have now added a total of four sources, three of them scholarly works that focus on this character specifically. There are more at the link above. I would like for someone to access the full text of the two that are paywalled, but for now, I have used them to support information freely visible in their abstracts. The third scholarly work is available in full text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of submissions for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic for this list is unencyclopedic. While it is possible to find a list of submitted films by year, this is trivial information – there is a major difference between being nominated (or even shortlisted) and merely being eligible. (As a comparison, would we allow a list of every Best Picture–eligible film? I suspect not even though sources exist.) See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! My bad! My apologies, 35.139.154.158! You were right and I blindly trusted the link. sorry. But who added it to the page in the first place and why??-Mushy Yank. 21:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Espngeek, why did you add it there?? -Mushy Yank. 21:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the Animated Feature is about to be deleted, why not the Animated Short Film? Espngeek (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, feel free to nominate it (it might look as if you were trying to make a point, given your !vote below, but it’s your call). Still, you had added the link formatted by RunningTiger123 for this discussion to a page that was not nominated for deletion and that was quite confusing (even disruptive, I must be honest with you)! You cannot do that, I’m afraid and ”merge submissions” (bundle nominations) as you suggest below would have been possible if the nominator had wished to do so but it is not the case and in tems of procedure and good practices, your copy-paste of the template was a very bad idea. Not possible anymore with this page then. Thank you! -Mushy Yank. 21:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deathstroke (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The DC Comics version is way more notable than this one. He isn't notable at all, the article has no publication history and only has one section, in which it says he fought and was defeated by Spider-Woman. He only has two sources, one is a list of supervillains, and another a dead link of the comic issue itself. His article is a complete mess. Toby2023 (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is quite literally no information that is mergeable here beyond a mention of the character existing, and the character is so obscure (A search yields only two actual appearances in the several decades of Marvel history, with one of them being incredibly minor) that he doesn't even warrant a mention. Not every one-off needs to be accounted for on the character list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pokelego999 - Utterly non-notable one-shot character. The character is a complete failure of the WP:GNG and is so completely minor that even including him on a character list would be ascribing more notability to him than actually exists. As stated above, not every single minor comic character that ever existed needs to be included in a character list, and this one is a very good example of one that should not. Rorshacma (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pokelego999; existence does not equal notability, enough for a list. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sven (Voltron) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, as i am a Voltron fan myself, this character fails WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE found nothing, it only talks about the shows he is from. This is something i didn't want to do, but i have to nominate it. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same issues as him.:

Princess Allura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keith (Voltron) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lance (Voltron) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hunk (Voltron) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prince Lotor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emperor Zarkon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Rise of Voltron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Toby2023 (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep for The Rise of Voltron as it is an episode and not a character and does not belong in this bundled nomination. It should be nominated separately. Merge all others to List of Voltron characters per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is an episode, but i still included this because it is Voltron after all. It doesn't pass WP:GNG. Toby2023 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but it's best to bundle nominations where the outcomes have a shared ending. In general, the bundling process is best avoided when articles are not very close in design. A charcter page is very different then a television episode page.4meter4 (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close WP:NPASR, but make sure that WP:BUNDLE is scrupulously followed per the above. If not, this is more likely than not going to end up as a train wreck. Better to restart clean with separate noms for characters and episode(s) rather than hoping it doesn't go off the rails. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where The Robots Grow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

You know how sometimes it's hard to tell if a subject is barely notable and low profile (for now, anyways) or not notable at all? That's the problem with this article. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the advantage of an WP:ATD at AFD. We can force an article to undergo a draft review.4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 My thought exactly. Deletion, redirect, draftify, significant improvement...anything other than "the article existing as is" is good, to be honest. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too soon - this film is only a month old. Short announcements pop up in AI/SciFi informal web sites, but that's all. IF (big if?) this eventually becomes a film that has had an impact, an article can be created then. I don't even think there is enough here to warrant draftify. Lamona (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anxiety (Inside Out) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article recently sprung up, but not in a good way. I find Joy more notable to have an article, but Anxiety doesn't. She currently fails WP:GNG and doesn't have much to say. She is a fairly new character, i would suggest a redirect to either Inside Out (franchise) or Inside Out 2. Toby2023 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Failed WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK criteria showing no significant coverage from secondary reliable sources that is independent of the subject other than passing mentions Paper9oll (🔔📝) 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and South Korea. – The Grid (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Support nomination rational. There are no sources or reviews of the book by reliable sources. Searched and all I found are book selling websites and unreliable review websites. Mekomo (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I found various sources, including https://www.asiae.co.kr/article/2019050311144057058 https://isplus.com/article/view/isp202304030015 for example; if it is judged insufficient I would suggest a redirect and merge to Lezhin Comics (an article that needs expansion and sourcing) Mushy Yank (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this not a passing mentions? Both are writing about their publisher entry to foreign markets in which 4 Cut Hero is basically written/promoted as part of like "here is some of their products". Paper9oll (🔔📝) 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A) my !vote indicates an alternative in case the majority of other users disagree B) "Is a passing mention"? Are passing mentions, you mean? Let's see (rough horrible translation, hope you don't mind)

    #Godzilla-kun (pen name), the author of '4-Cut Hero' serialized in Lezhin Comics, is busy these days. This is because the long-running webtoon that has been serialized for six years since 2014 has recently succeeded in advancing into the US market, which means he has more work to do. On the Lezhin Comics application (app) that services Lezhin Comics comics, 4-Cut Hero is ranked in the top 10 in terms of US sales. Considering that the Lezhin Comics app is highly popular with American readers, 4-Cut Hero is also said to be well-received in the US market.

    (Asiae. I consider this not a passing mention, but maybe I'm wrong)

    '4-Cut Warrior' is a webtoon that began serialization in 2014, with approximately 78 million cumulative views and is currently serviced on 12 platforms in 5 countries. The diverse characters, dense plot, high-quality drawings, and gag codes at the right places, as well as the various elements that have been loved by readers for a long time, have become sufficient cornerstones for the production of an animation. The production was handled by the Chinese platform Bilibili.

    (Isplus, I consider this not a passing mention and it's not, in my opinion, equivalent to basically writ[ing about]/promot[ing] [the subject] as part of like "here is some of their products"
    But again, maybe I'm wrong; still, I am suggesting an ATD. Mushy Yank (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok noted, thanks for sharing your thoughts. However, even though I don't needed translation, IMO it's still passing mentions as 4 Cut Hero isn't the main topic for either reportings and my BEFORE before AfDing this article doesn't really shows otherwise. Regardless, I'm open to the alternative of just partial merging certain content if sourced rather than a full "cut-paste" as IMO it would be out-of-place for Lezhin Comics article. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 13:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neither the English language article nor its Chinese equivalent have in depth coverage in independent sources. Sources may exist in Chinese but on current showing this title isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a well-known online comic in China, the source is sufficient. Wtf35861887 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I added some sources and updated the content. Wtf35861887 (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but those don’t help. They are just more sites selling or distributing the title. Please see WP:BOOKCRIT. To show notability we need independent sources discussing the work in depth. Mccapra (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. According to the source, 28,029 people rated this webcomic, giving it a score of 9.9. Another large Chinese rating website gave it a score of 9.6. For a recently completed short-to-medium BL themed online comic, this is no small feat.
According to the source link, 5.55 billion people have read this online comic with a niche theme. If this is not well-known, then what does it mean to be "well-known".
Of course, this comic cannot be as famous as a classic work like Shakespeare. Wtf35861887 (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, I recommend not deleting it, but keeping it and waiting for people to improve this entry. Wtf35861887 (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but we have articles about other webcomics that are discussed in independent sources. Has this one been discussed in independent sources? That’s what is missing. Mccapra (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why don’t ACGx and Douban count? ACGx is a company that studies the ACG market and Douban is a rating website where users give voluntary ratings. They will not gain any revenue or benefit in any way. Wtf35861887 (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the content of ACGx’s news articles, ACGx is researching modern Chinese comics, not promoting or touting Beauty and the West Chamber. More than half of the entire article mainly talks about Chinese opera rather than introducing Beauty and the West Chamber. ACGx simply stated that Beauty and the West Chamber is one of the excellent examples of the combination of traditional culture in new entertainment media, and also mentioned Beauty and the West Chamber has some advantages in subject selection. Wtf35861887 (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ACGx talks about the use of traditional culture in modern entertainment media, and by the way studies some manifestations of traditional culture in Beauty and the West Chamber, while many other news columns simply introduce Beauty and the West Chambe or promote Beauty and the West Chambe. These differences It can be easily seen from the text and the writer.
To be sure, there is no news column for promotion and praise in the source link.
I don’t think this article reaches the level that needs to be deleted. It needs improvements and updated content, but it's not worth deleting. Wtf35861887 (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ACGx mentioned in the article that Beauty and the West Chambe had 1.35 billion people watching it when it was serialized for 69 episodes. Isn’t this enough to prove that Beauty and the West Chambe is an online comic with some popularity? This popularity is obviously One of the reasons why Beauty and the West Chambe caught the attention of ACGx.
According to Tencent Animation and Comics, a large comics reading platform, Beauty and the West Chamber's score has increased from 9.0 two or three years ago to 9.9 now, which is almost a perfect score. Beauty and the West Chamber's popularity is obviously on the rise.
Why are you in a hurry to delete the entry? This comic has just been completed...
There is still a lot of information that has not been put here, such as the author's thoughts, readers' discussions, and comments.
This entry is worth keeping. Wtf35861887 (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another new media company specializing in the ACG market, 3wyu, listed Chinese comics in 2019 in their article titled? Comics, comics exhibitions, and stores are all losing money, and American entertainment companies are also exploring business models" In the popularity ranking, Beauty and the West Chamber ranked tenth.
Apparently there are a number of independent sources talking about this. Wtf35861887 (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3wyu, another new media company specializing in the ACG market, listed Chinese comics in 2019 in their article titled "Comics, comics exhibitions, and stores are all losing money, and American entertainment companies are also exploring business models" In the popularity ranking, Beauty and the West Chamber ranked tenth. Wtf35861887 (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know of any other sites that mention the anime? Do any news articles say "Wow, 69 million people are watching this and that is unusual because [reason]"? Because that could indicate notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Would defer to anyone who can read and evaluate these Chinese-language sources. From what I can tell, these are mostly sourcing to the comic itself and pages from comic archive sites that note that the subject exists. Not bad but not indicative of notability. What this article needs is sources that show that the comic is important: Critical reviews of the comic. Scholarly works that mention or discuss the comic. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Just did a very cursory source-check myself. Google gave "Beauty and the West Chamber" no first-page results of the type we'd need. Google Scholar gave no hits at all. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Little Panda Fighter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe this rip-off film is notable enough for inclusion. The article has 7 sources; however, sources 1 and 5 are merely lists of bad rip-off films where it is briefly mentioned, source 2 is an IMDB equivalent, source 4 is an amazon listing, source 6 and 7 are youtube videos about the film, and source 3 is about the studio and doesn't once mention the movie.

This film fails WP:NFILM as I can't find any more reliable sources out there. CoconutOctopus talk 10:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's true it should be deleted because I tried to make another article about another rip off film called Chop Kick Panda and it got denied for creation and when trying to fix the article and resubmitting it, it later got the ability to resubmit it disabled. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason for deletion. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should a Redirect be the path chosen Vídeo Brinquedo#Filmography might be the best target.Mushy Yank (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Vídeo Brinquedo#Filmography as per Mushy Yank. Honestly all they sources they gave don't indicate WP:SIGCOV - they are all passing mentions in a list and the only things I could find specifically about it are ugi like IMDb, Rotten Tomato, Fandom so clearly doesn't qualify for its own article, but, evidently the studio does so I don't see harm in redirecting it to a place in the studio's article where it is listed Keep per Mushy Yank's work. WP:SIGCOV states that "it does not need to be the main topic of the source material", and the sources are about cringe-y films, not the movie, but they do discuss it in detail - with WP:NFILM describes as not being a "plot summary with no critical commentary" (these sources do add critical commentary) and WP:SIGCOV describes as ensuring "no original research is needed to extract the content", which is very clearly evident as they describe the both the film's plot, the context in which it is made, and add critical commentary. Concerns are raised by other users about reliability, but, one of the sources is Colliders, which is considered a reliable source per WP:RSN for films [4]. MolecularPilot 22:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, do you consider the following paragraphs, taken from the sources above, non-significant? (It's a real question) From my understanding of significance on WP, they are not passing mentions:

    How does it compare to the original? Take Kung Fu Panda, render it in MS Paint, then take the MS Paint version and render it on an Etch-a-Sketch. We’re not done yet. Put that Etch-a-Sketch version back into MS Paint and color it using the paint bucket tool and…jeez, that still looks way too good. Any way we can do this all on a Commodore 64?The Little Panda Fighter is about a world inhabited by bears that all look like someone punched a jar of Play-Doh in the face. One particularly perverse panda spends an unsettling amount of time in his dank basement, but instead of begging others to put the lotion on the skin, this panda dreams of becoming a ballerina. Unfortunately, he is forced to become a kick boxer (typical panda struggle). Will he find a way to bring these two worlds together? The movie probably cares less than you do. Also, the panda falls down a lot. Because he’s fat. Comedy!

    (MentalFloss)

    The Little Panda Fighter follows the story of a clumsy panda named Pancada, who works at a boxing club and has big aspirations of becoming a professional dancer. After a strange miscommunication error, Pancada accidentally ends up being a combatant at his club's upcoming fight, being mistaken for a legendary panda fighter who challenged the club's champion. Pandaca now must train for his upcoming battle, and finds that his dancing skills may just be helpful for him in the ring.As far as animated rip-off movies go, it's hard to get more blatant and obvious than The Little Panda Fighter, which is attempting to leech off of the success of Dreamworks' Kung Fu Panda. While Kung Fu Panda was filled with exceptional and groundbreaking visuals, fun characters, and exhilarating battle sequences, The Little Panda Fighter features none of these positive aspects. Its minuscule budget resulted in a film with primarily lackluster dialogue sequences and dated animation quality, with a plot that only resembles Kung Fu Panda via having a Panda main character.

    (Collider A)

    A major trend that persisted throughout the 2000s was the abundance of cheap ripoff films that were released at the same time as more popular animated films as an attempt to siphon business from blockbuster titles. While this trend was just as prevalent in live-action as it was in animation, the cheaply animated examples more egregiously show the variance in quality between these poor excuses for films and the actual films they're ripping off. One of the most comically inept examples is The Little Panda Fighter, a blatant ripoff of Kung Fu Pandathat is unabashed in its copying. The Little Panda Fighter is a culmination of all the trends and facets that made these ripoff films both so terrible in execution and abundant and unavoidable in bargain bins of the era. While it's blatant to anyone with eyes just how much the film is using the likeness of Kung Fu Panda, the actual film itself couldn't be any more dissimilar, following a story of a panda who doesn't want to fight, but instead wants to dance. Especially when the original Dreamworks film exists, there's little reason to ever give The Little Panda Fighter the attention it so deeply craves.

    (Collider B)

    The Little Panda Fighter follows. the story of Pancada, a panda who works at a boxing club and has big dreams of becoming a world-famous dancer. After an unfortunate case of mistaken identity, Pancada accidentally gets caught up and is scheduled for an upcoming fight at his boxing club, and begins to train for what will be the fight of his life.It's clear from the get-go that The Little Panda Fighter 's primary purpose and reason for existing is to leech off of and scam unsuspecting viewers who mistook the film for Dreamworks' Kung Fu Panda, released the same year. Although, unlike the masterful animation style of the Dreamworks film, The Little Panda Fighter's cheap animation style leaves much to be desired. The film also features a hilariously strange plot, further amplified by the vocal performances.

    (Collider C)

    This movie could be a “Kung Fu Panda” spin-off about an unknown brother who managed to survive, but was separated from Po. And yet it’s just a trashy uninspired rip-off with a similar plot and lower budget. Besides, the panda on the poster doesn’t seem like a normal animal. It looks more like a host for some crazy fitness show for toddlers. Just kidding..

    (NSTER, Archived)
    I consider significance to be a threshold, and I would tend to think that it is reached here. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (sorry for the late reply, I forgot to add this page to my watch list) - after reviewing the policies at WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV I think the coverage you've provided does count as "significant". Specifically, WP:NFILM says that plot summaries do not count - but these also include critical comments. I think, together, they create significant coverage. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 03:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 15:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comics and animation proposed deletions

[edit]

Categories for discussion

[edit]

Redirects for discussion

[edit]

Templates for discussion

[edit]