Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartoon violence


 * 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 as a DMB page. This is certainly a valid term, as exemplified by the references that were found during the AfD. However, insufficient content was adduced that would stand up an encyclopaedic page. The opinions of the contributing editors were several and varied. The delete views, though, were not backed up by convincing reasons. The consensus was that the page should be kept in some form. A DMB page looks a good solution. TerriersFan (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Cartoon violence

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

This page isn't really worthy of a page on its own but more or less on the ESRB page or other similar pages John Collier (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Awww, this would make a great essay topic. But for the moment it makes a crap encyclopedia entry. Hairhorn (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnecessary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I created the article simply as a redirect to cartoon physics because the phrase "cartoon violence" is often used to refer to that topic. I'd just like to see it used in that way, not in the way it currently is. Cale (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say Cale's suggestion to redirect as originally intended, is a good solution. Cartoon physics, while I've never heard that term, seems to mean the same thing. --Susan118 (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Make a disambig - He meant it to be a disambig page, and I don't think it's an unreasonable one. Shadowjams (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If that happens, that last item mentioning violence related to a particular newspaper cartoon should be removed. Does not seem logical that someone would be looking under "cartoon violence" for that. --Susan118 (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with Television content rating systems (Which is a redirect from Fantasy Violence). Cartoon violence, as in Wile E. Coyote getting hit on the head with an anvil is considered differently than realistic violence such as a gun battle in a crime drama. Eauhomme (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 *  Make Keep as a disambig I agree with Shadowjams. This is a reasonable disambiguation page. I do not believe that this would be a good merger for Television content rating systems as it specifically redirects to articles that have a similar meaning, and does not discuss any rating systems. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 13:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the page seems to already be a disambiguation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I only see the disambig page, but cartoon violence is an extremely encyclopedic subject, more than cartoon physics. Maybe someone will write such an article someday. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Here's nearly 500+ online searchable books that may help and several hundred Google scholar hits. A good article discussing cartoon violence, can you say The Itchy & Scratchy Show?, is certainly on order here especially as it has been tied to aggression in minors of all ages. -- Banj e  b oi   01:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Perfectly okay as a disambig page. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete has potential to be a good (or a bad -- it's currently very bad) personal essay and general venue for original research. It is not an encyclopedia topic.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep meets requirements for disambiguation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic with much potential. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2009 (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.