Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Crackers (1937 comic strip)


 * 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 Keep and expand. -- zzuuzz(talk) 12:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Animal Crackers (1937 comic strip)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No sources, and no apparent notability; the creators, "Warren Goodrich" + "Dick Ryan", receive no Ghits combined. Borderline speedy because it fails to assert its notability (comic strips aren't automatically notable), but I'm listing it here in case anyone knows this. Also listing the similarly named, but apparently unrelated Animal Crackers (1930 comic strip) for the same reason - even less information in that one. Pufnstuf 00:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, if references can be found, I'll change my vote. --Cremepuff222  ( talk,  review me! ) 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless (good) references are given. Unverifiable for now (e.g. not on Toonopedia), even when searching for different spellings of names. Fram 11:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Keep per NewyorkBrad (thank you!). If no other sources can be found, perhaps an article on Goodrich, with a redirect from Animal Crackers to that new article, may be better, but that is more of an editorial decision, and does not mean that this comic strip is not notable, only that we currently lack enough information for a good independent article. Fram 05:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - No assertion of notability for the authors or the strip. Also, in what publication was it featured? How long did it run? We don't know any of this because there aren't any sources of information given, no verifiability. -- Cy ru s   An dir on  12:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete -as with Cremepuff222, I can't justify deletion if sources can be found, but as is, this is a delete. Nihiltres 12:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete since no sources are to be found. No keep if nothing is attributable.. M URGH  disc.  14:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per new sources. But unless more is found I agree with a merge to a Goodrich article, and above title redirecting there. M URGH  disc.  09:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep as it's probably useful to keep a record of even obscure shows, i.e. to better catalog human knowledge of entertainment history. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But, we appear to be missing the knowledge. WP depends on the information existing elsewhere too. M URGH  disc.  16:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cremepuff222. No sources. Acalamari 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find it listed in any of my sources, including The World Encyclopedia of Comics. 23skidoo 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced, with no indication of where the strip ran (newspapers? magazines? ads?). For all we know, it ran in some bi-weekly high school newspaper. Caknuck 19:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Changing vote per evidence mentioned below. As far as a Google search goes, make sure not to confuse this strip with the one of the same name that ran in the 1980s. Caknuck 03:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. Would be willing to reconsider if verifiable references were provided.  --ElKevbo 21:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per new evidence cited below. Needs quite a bit of work but notability has been established.  --ElKevbo 02:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, shattering the consensus above. This is outside my primary expertise but references include, an obituary of creator Warren Goodrich, which states that in 1934, "he started a syndicated cartoon feature called 'Animal Crackers,' using animals to depict human foibles. It became an instant success. Syndicated by the Chicago Sun-Times, the one-panel cartoon, which appeared six times a week, featured in more than 100 newspapers for many years. It was so popular that the [San Francisco] Chronicle featured it on its front page next to the weather report." See also . A referral to Project Comics should be able to elicit additional information and sourcing. Newyorkbrad 21:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A surprising source in Los Altos Town Crier, but it's something. Too bad so little covers this particular article, but substantial enough to support a Goodrich article which this could be merged into. M URGH  disc.  00:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If there's this in a 2-minute Google search, there is more out there, although a subject-matter specialist would be useful (I have a relative with a major library on the history of comics and will do some research there when I visit, though that won't be within the 5-day term of this AfD). Newyorkbrad 00:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand. The material cited by New York Brad shows that there is enough material for a stub with possible expansion later on. A Google News Archive shows that there are considerable sources out there to support an article on the strip. . Capitalistroadster 02:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a prime example of a subject that needs hard-copy research, not online research, and a reminder that just because something's not popular with Generation Google doesn't mean it's not notable. Is there a comics wikiproject? -- Charlene 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is. --  Zanimum 12:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I also wonder if AFD rules should be amended for cases like this which require actually going to the library or other types of research.  A five-day window for articles B.G. (before google) seems small. Neier 04:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I've added some brief information from a 1990s San Francisco Chronicle article I found in my library; that and Newyorkbrad's Los Altos Town Crier source should get us at least a decent stub. --Dragonfiend 05:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the comments above. Once again, the Google test fails us.  RFerreira 02:32, 15 April 2007 (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.