Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imaginaria


 * 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. The article, as noted, does need a lot of work, but AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger One ping only 05:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Imaginaria

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparently not notable, zero sources and basically an article-long table. Should be deleted. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 21:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Considering. this is an awesome, in-depth, RS... but the only one I've found so far. There may be more, in which case this would be a clear keep, but I'm leaning keep even on the basis of this one source, but GNG is not met by a single source, no matter how good it is. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep with this as well, I'd call that two fantastic RS'es. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is Spoutly considered a reliable source by the respective WikiProject? Either way, I doubt that two sources count as "significant coverage" (WP:SIGCOV). Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 09:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage has to do with the depth of the article, and both of these are quite in depth. What you're looking for is multiple, and two is multiple, hence enough to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd be fine with keeping the article if it could, to an extend, be entirely rewritten to not be a 51-lines-and-2-sections-long list succeeded by a 404 link and preceeded only by three poorly written sentences. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Jclemens has dug up two sources that ought to be added to the article. The nominator just above here has basically conceded that the article merely needs to be improved in quality. I hope that the subsequent "improvement" doesn't involve gutting the long lists. Yeah, it's a mess and needs sourcing, but it looks to be a labor of love, covering some foundational works in early computer animation. Note that some of the individual items on this list have their own wikipages. (eg, The Adventures of André and Wally B. and More Bells and Whistles) This list-y page is thus providing more context and background data for those pages. Gpc62 (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The list could/should be condensed at least into a table with a slightly lower font size, so that it not majorly putwigths text content. Better visualziation would also be possible. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:09, 15 November 2017 (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.