Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Icons


 * 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. North America1000 22:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Animal Icons

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Could only find a few passing mentions here and there: directory listings, name-drops in articles about Animal Planet, etc. The "Star Wars" episode got an article but I was unable to confirm anything else about this show beyond its mere existence. That it's been an unsourced stub since 2007 is a sign that the show made no impact whatsoever, and it definitely fails the WP:RS test. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I couldn't find anything related to this program during my search, which reinforces how run of the mill this show was.TH1980 (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article reviews Animal Icons: Jaws. The article provides 144 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Just when you thought it was safe to switch the set back on. Jaws the movie was a box-office hit, but how close did Jaws come to the animal it portrayed? This edition of Animal Icons is more about the pretend shark than the real shark, which is fine by me, but may disappoint viewers genuinely interested in sharks."   The article reviews Animal Icons: King Kong. The article provides 170 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Without King Kong there would be no Lord of the Rings or Jurassic Park or Wallace and Gromit for that matter. In the first of a series celebrating the animal icons of film and TV, New Zealand director Peter Jackson reveals that he saw the movie when he was nine and resolved there and then to pursue a career in film. King Kong, left, also pioneered stop-motion animation, paving the way for Wallace and his canine sidekick. ... This story behind the story reveals how he was conceived and the trailblazing special effects that brought him to life."   The article provides 119 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Animal Icons: Star Wars Creatures, Animal Planet, Sunday, 7.30pm. Especially since we're currently in the grip of another round of Star Wars mania, it's probably little surprise that most kids list Wookiees, Gungans, Ewoks, Bantha or even something as slimy and sinister as a Dianoga as their favourite animal. But where did George Lucas and his animators get the inspiration for their galaxy of creatures? This fun special tracks down the animals that were caricaturised to create the various Star Wars beasties."   The article provides 163 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Did you ever wonder where the idea for Jabba the Hutt came from? Or what exactly is a Boga and will there be merchandising? Or maybe how can every media outlet on the face of the Earth tie itself in with "Star Wars: Episode III"? Animal Planet has the answer to most of the above this week in an hourlong special that looks at the origin of George Lucas' galactic menagerie, from Ewoks to Wookiees and how these fantasy creatures are inspired by actual animals found on Earth."   The article provides 258 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Animal Planet is going after bigger game tonight, including George Lucas' Hutts and Wookiees. Lucas not only appears on camera but also co-produced Animal Icons: Star Wars, a tribute to the universe he created. Yes, it's an hourlong infomercial for Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith -- which, conveniently, is scheduled to open in the United States at midnight. But as commercials go, it's an entertaining one."   The article reviews Animal Icons: Star Wars Creatures. The article provides 119 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Hosted by actor Anthony Daniels (aka C-3PO), Animal Icons takes us behind the scenes to meet the conceptual artists, animators, special effects technicians and voiceover artists who brought the Star Wars safari to life." </li> <li> The article notes: "With guaranteed blockbuster "Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith" due in theaters Thursday, Animal Planet hopes viewers will warm up with "Animal Icons: Star Wars Creatures." It debuts at 7 p.m. Wednesday and repeats at 10 p.m. Anthony Daniels, who voices robot C-3PO in all of the "Star Wars" movies, narrates the hourlong special." </li> <li>Less significant coverage:<ol> <li> The article provides 43 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Animal Icons: Comic Book Creatures, Animal Planet Batman (pictured), Spider Man and Mighty Mouse - as comic book heroes, each has drawn their superpowers from the animal kingdom. In this episode, Animal Icons compares these characters with the real animals that inspired their creation." </li> <li> The article provides 82 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Has Animal Planet exhausted the natural world? Seems like it, given that this series is devoted to iconic animal figures from the cultural world. King Kong and Jaws are to come o this week it's Garfield. Created by Jim Davis, the fat and lazy cat is big (the strip is read in 111 countries, apparently), although quite why he deserves an episode, and Snoopy doesn't, takes some explaining. Perhaps it's something to do with the behind-the-scenes look at the recent feature film." </li> <li> The article provides 72 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Pure seasonal froth. The animal icons in this instance are those that appear in TV shows and films - Snoopy, Santa's Little Helper in The Simpsons, The Muppets. It's smooth voiceover and cheesy music time - so much so that you think this must be ironic - and there's lots of talk of spiritual uplift and delightful traditions. But it's an American production, which shines through in the production values and the characters on offer." </li> <li> The article provides 81 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Think: Just in time to promote a movie that scarcely needs any extra hype comes this "documentary" about the film series' sundry colorful (and, yes, goofy) alien species. Don't think: The Jedi Knights are pretty much erased in Episode III - Revenge of the Sith. Just think how much more satisfying it would be if George Lucas indulged in Ewok-icide instead.  In a nutshell: More Lucas hagiography in the guise of an Animal Planet show about nonexistent beasties. Nonetheless, essential for fanboys." </li> <li> The article reviews Animal Icons: Garfield. The article provides 22 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "If you're one of the 260 million people worldwide who read the comic-strip, you'll enjoy this gushing profile of the sardonic feline." </li> </ol></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Animal Icons to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * All but one of the "major" sources is about the Star Wars episode and still seems pretty non-substantial. I'll leave this up to what others think, but this is a borderline WP:REFBOMB to my eyes. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (144 words) is about Animal Icons: Jaws. (170 words) is about Animal Icons: King Kong. Cunard (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep sources shared by Cunard allow this to pass WP:GNG. A source doesn't have to be entirely or even mostly about the subject for it to count towards GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NemesisAT (talk • contribs)
 * The results still seem pretty meager. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep sources shared by are generally reliable and, as a whole, demonstrate more than enough coverage to pass WP:GNG IME. ~Kvng (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard.  starship .paint  (exalt) 07:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard. Donald D23   talk to me  12:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.