Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animation in the United States during the silent era


 * 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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) EJF (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Animation in the United States during the silent era

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm going to be WP:BOLD and nominate this for deletion. This article contains little of value, and I don't see how to turn it into a good, encyclopaedic article.  Enigma  msg! 05:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - the article is about a significant era within an artistic tradition. Similar perhaps to an article about Art Deco, or Bebop. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Art deco is more significant than this. That's one of several reasons why Art Deco is a useful article, and this isn't.  Enigma  msg! 05:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT is showing. --Dhartung | Talk 06:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say.  Enigma  msg! 16:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, usable WP:STUB, important era with -- I'm sorry -- obvious expandability to any editor willing to roll up sleeves and give it a shot. I have added a few sources. (This is an article featured in the last couple of days on Kelly Martin's blog as an interrogative example of Wikipedia quality.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, this is an important topic in the history of animation and the nominator provides no convincing argument for deletion. The nominator can help turn it into a good article by consulting the books in the "Further reading" section that Dhartung added and expanding the article. --Pixelface (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I can think of no reason for deleting this article. It is sensible, readable, informative and referenced. The information is verifiable and the topic notable. I've added some references to Jeff Lenburg's Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons, most of the article can be verified against that.Nick Connolly (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * done some editing to the first paragraph.Nick Connolly (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: The article might be a bit sparse right now, but it forms part of a series (the other parts covering later eras, linked in History of animation), and there is huge scope for expansion and a wealth of excellent reference material out there. ~Matticus UC 12:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Lack of content should not be used as criteria for AFD otherwise every stub would be in trouble. There's a lot to write about on this issue by people who are familiar with it, and many notable examples of the genre, including numerous productions by Disney. Expand and improve, as always, but this is a perfectly viable topic. 23skidoo (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - some good points are made already mainly that this article is easily expandable, and there is a wealth of printed and online material referencing this topic. Commonly used term(s) yielding over 420,000 hits and 199,000 hits  respectively. Article could easily address the genesis of well known animated characters, notably Mickey Mouse and Felix the Cat.AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, both for the obvious notability and verifiability of the time period and the improvements that have happened because of the AfD. Cel  Talk to me  14:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons state above. It's a significant era for animation and I believe the article can be expanded well. Bill (talk 14:51, 17 March 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.