This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
This article has a paragraph dedicated to an academic article by Jordan Youngblood. It's jargon-heavy and obtuse. Is this article notable enough for inclusion? As far as I can tell, the author is not a particularly famous academic, and the article hasn't received significant citations outside of a few examples in its field. It seems very unlikely that anyone would encounter the article outside of the academic discipline that spawned it, and the quoted sections of the article don't appear to be particularly enlightening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitecake (talk • contribs) 03:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Abryn: What are your thoughts on completely removing the Youngblood article? The article does not seem particularly notable, and its content doesn't appear to be particularly useful in summarizing the broader response to Kanji Tatsumi as a character. Rather, the academic discipline it stems from is pretty cloistered and idiosyncratic. Suitecake (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
