Deletion of Phantom Blot

Comment: The article can either be expanded with further sources, or it can be reworked and renamed/moved into Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot as suggested by other editors. Either way, both outcomes are in the spirit of  and . There is no established consensus that CBR is unreliable (or reliable). There is however, consensus that its sister site, Screen Rant which operates in a very similar manner or format as CBR following its acquisition by the same parent company in 2016, is "Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Screen_Rant|marginally reliable" following a RfC which received substantial participation. In other words Screen Rant (which is more film/TV/video game focused) is reliable enough for entertainment-related topics such as fictional characters, but inappropriate for use in BLP articles, and I imagine a consensus for CBR (which is more comics focused) would be the same in the event that it is also subjected to a RfC
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: Apart from what's said above, notice that there are articles about the character in 18 other language Wikipedias including major languages like French and Italian.  These appear to be substantial and have sources in those languages too.  As the character goes back over 70 years and Disney has been a big deal in many countries, there is clearly international notability.  It would be absurd to delete the character in its mother tongue.  Our policies such as  and  apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: or '''Redirect''' — I see no evidence this meets otability. Existence in other Wikipedias is only evidence that most of them are also hard at work dealing with fancruft
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Topic of the character lacks sources necessary to meet . If the comic itself is actually notable, the content in the article on the comic does not amount to much, so I don't think it'd be proper to simply rework the topic as it stands. It's basically a TNT case with maybe justification for a light merge of a paragraph should anyone find sufficient sourcing for the comic to meet GNG
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)