Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opening logos of the MGM cartoon department


 * 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 Merge into Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer cartoon studio. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Opening logos of the MGM cartoon department
More original research featuring various opening title cards. Serves no encyclopedic purpose; better suited for a fansite. FuriousFreddy 00:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OR delete per FuriousFreddy and previous AfDs with similar topics at hand. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 04:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not particularly useful and really just describes the images. Formatting unappealing, and has also has some problems with the tone of writing. In addition, much of the page is slightly altered content from this page. Bob talk 08:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom L e idiot 10:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Same reasons as the above, generally poorly written, even despite my contributions and doesn't really require its own page. Perhaps better to incorporate some of this in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Animation instead? MartinP1983 12:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Commnet. There's no encyclopedic value in analyzing the opening title cards from cartoons. --FuriousFreddy 11:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into MGM cartoon department which doesn't really have any treatment on the Logo outside of two of the images. There is some encyclopedic merit to the material as a history of one of the world's most recognizable logos but like above, I don't think it needs it's own page. I agree that the format needs to be cleaned up. Ideally I would say a two boxes of 4 with smaller then thumbnail pics should be used with a paragraph to the side detailing how the logo has evolved. Agne 15:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: We've deleted similar galleries from other articles after such proposed "merges". --FuriousFreddy 11:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Though it needs to cite its sources for the background information behind each image, these opening logos are and iconic part of MGM history, and thus worthy of treatment in an encyclopedia. Rohirok 17:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Agne. Not sure I follow the alleged problem with "original research" here; the released cartoons themselves are an authoritative primary source for this material.  The history should be kept somewhere. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Commnet. You can't use the cartoons themselves as a reference for an article like this, because you are analyzing them yourself to create the article. Therefore, it is original research; you're not referencing an actual scholarly work. --FuriousFreddy 11:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment While not titled properly, this is article is essentially a list. It is lacking reference and looking at the article the items that are normally the first line in each section ("This logo was first used in ....") is what's most pressing for a ref. The rest is just a description of what the logo looks like that correlates with the photo to the side. From WP:OR it clearly says "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments.". The description of the logos proposes nothing and you can't even stretch that to be synthesis. Overall the OR argument is weak. I think the much stronger arguement is context and the fact that an entire article on the logos is not needed. As the majority of editors here on this AfD agree, there is some merit in maintain information on one of the world's most iconic logos and it's therefore better off to be merged. Agne 17:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's original research because it is an analysis of established facts which cannot be sourced from a reliable website. Besides that, there is absolutely no merit in retain this, or anything similar, on what is (was?) supposed to be a reliable reference source, and anyone who knows anything about scholarly writing will tell you so. "One of the world's most iconic logos?" We already have a (piss-poor) article on Leo the Lion (MGM); why do we need two bad articles? --FuriousFreddy 19:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As a side note, with all original pre-1952 MGM cartoon elements no longer existing, the jumbled re-relase schedule of MGM cartoons, and their re-editing and plastering-over of opening logos of said cartoons, there is absolutely no way this article (or any merger) could be factually accurate, as the source information just doesn't exist. --FuriousFreddy 19:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge. This has some encyclopedic merit, although i agree it needs it sources cited. Benon 22:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial details do not require a whole article. Batmanand | Talk 22:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Animation as per Agne. -- LBM  | TALK TO ME  23:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial filmcruft. --S0uj1r0 07:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonencyclopedic trivial fancruft. It would be nice if the logospotters would find another site to bother. &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge (condition) Are the old ones even under copyright legally anymore? if no: merge into gallery on MGM main; otherwise: nuke. · XP  · 02:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per above users. Fair use images and they would serve well in the cartoon department article. I don't know where the "Original Research" part comes from. There is no claim being made. It's just a compliation of images. 205.157.110.11 09:20, 19 September 2006 (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.