Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Cartoons (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  21:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

100 Greatest Cartoons
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

One of those cases where the first AFD just got it completely wrong. A list of 100 items, presented in a defined order, is a copyright violation of the list. This article basically matches http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/G/greatest/cartoons/results.html in its entirety &mdash;Kww(talk) 01:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete because they left out The Angry Beavers and Chowder. No, seriously, companies make lists like this all the time, this one isn't individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per JJL. Subject is a film which may indeed be notable, didn't realize there were more of these. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the subject appears to be a documentary film, not the list itself. Edit the list if that's the problem, and change the article's name to "The 100 Greatest Cartoons" to match the film. JJL (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; basically per JLL. Change title to The 100 Greatest Cartoons to avoid confusion. RockManQ  (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, This is notable. Thousands of people have seen this. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Another non-notable list of random shows which probably violates C4's copyright.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 10:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability demonstrated. List may be removed due to copyyright concern. Wily D 10:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   --  treelo  radda  16:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Oh come on! How is this specific time-filler any bit notable? Channel 4 has made a lot of these "The 100 Greatest X" shows (none of which are documentaries, bear that in mind) just to eat up 4 hours or so with clips and various voxpops. The damn thing is a near enough verbatim copyvio of their list and has the added benefit of not being able to adequately explain just why it is notable because it really isn't. I know there's others but really, it's a goddamn POV list and why people feel they want to keep it because it exists is beyond me. treelo  radda  17:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to Channel 4's "100 Greatest Cartoons" and then Delete I had to laugh at the idea that this piece of fluff is a "documentary". Television networks like to do countdown shows -- greatest commercials, greatest cartoons, greatest suffragists, etc.  They require virtually no writing, they're cheap to assemble from film clips and soundbite celebrity comments, people tune into them for awhile, and sometimes folks hang around for two hours for the suspense of finding out, during the last 20 minutes, what was selected "number one".  I'd say the same for ratings done by "Cartoon Network" or "Nickelodeon" or "The Disney Channel".  If anyone can demonstrate secondary notability (might have been the cover story for The Economist) that might be different.  There is nothing from the article to indicate notability.  Mandsford (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to meet WP:NOTE. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is about a documentary broadcast nationally in the UK by a major network. It is not a list article. As it is reporting the results of a broadcast survey, it is not copyvio, nor does it violate Wikipedia list policy. Specials, documentaries, and other programs broadcast nationally by nationally-available networks are inherently notable. 23skidoo (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The list in not encyclopedic. Channel 4 in 2004 conducted a public poll and then compiled this list. Channel 4 pre-selected 105 cartoons and then had a public poll rank them. Channel 4 is not an authority on this field and the poll was not scientific making the list random, biased and useless except for entertainment value. EconomistBR  11:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh gosh, haven't you been reading the discussion? The article isn't about the "list" itself.  Nobody would mind if the list itself could be removed from the article, for this article is actually about the hard-hitting TELEVISION DOCUMENTARY that revealed, for the first time, that members of the British public enjoyed cartoons.  Unlike any show of its kind before or since, "it included featuring the reminiscences of celebrities and media pundits interlaced with clips from the shows themselves."   The night of 27 February 2005 will long be remembered as "when they showed that cartoon countdown was on Channel 4", and many a Briton today can tell you where he or she was on that evening.  The list is irrelevant.  It's about the documentary.  And what a documentary it truly was. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am willing to give my point. But who said it is documentary? I've never heard of documentaries about non-scientific entertainment public polls. What sort of documentary is that? Besides the article devotes 4 lines to this documentary and then lists all 100 cartoons, therefore IMO it's a list.  EconomistBR  18:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The show is evidently notable. The issue raised by the nomination is a matter of content editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those gnews hits are worthless, most are either reviews, reports on who got number one (both outlets owned by the same parent company no less), overnight ratings stories and not much in the way of validly proving notability. Content editing won't save this given there is no content. treelo  radda  14:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Just as a note to whomever closes this, few people in the UK would consider this list to be notable given how frequent similar shows come along. As per Mansford's explaination, it's not a documentary and only those who aren't in the UK and don't have an accurate picture to reference feel it has notability. treelo  radda  13:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please speak for yourself only, not an entire country. I am in the UK and disagree with your comments. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Another hodgepodge list -- some of the entries are films, some are TV shows, some are just cartoon characters without any specific production attached to them. Also, echoing Treelo and Nate's comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. What, no Tooter Turtle ??  FAIL. --Captain Infinity (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. We have the American The 50 Greatest Cartoons, so why not the British 100 Greatest Cartoons?  This isn't the greatest written article, but that isn't a reason for deletion. Rameses The Ram (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If the American "The 50 Greatest Cartoons" had been a television show, then I would be in favor of deletion of that as well. While that article also might well be nominated for deletion, although I would point out that it was a book, rather than a television special, and that the book purported to be based upon a survey of "1,000 animation professionals" rather than a popularity contest among a network's viewers.  I think that it's fair to say that in the case of both the book and the television show, the best measure of notability would be secondary coverage by independent sources.  If the book was not noticed by book reviewers, it might not pass the test. Mandsford (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Are you saying that coverage doesn't count unless there is coverage of the coverage?  --Captain Infinity (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand either. We both gave our reasons for a deletion, although "What, no Tooter Turtle?" is more concise than anything I can say. Mandsford (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.