Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goopy Geer

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 speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Goopy Geer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cartoon character. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.

• Keep. It's a part of animation history.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (the first of the Wikipedia:Five pillars) says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge. Wikipedia is freely available, and incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." (Emphasis added.) Don Markstein's Toonopedia is a specialized encyclopedia. It's important enough to have its own template for citing. The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons is also specialized encyclopedia.

Like it or not, animated cartoons are part of human culture now. They just are. This entity is part of the seminal early days of this new medium. Not an important part, but a part, a part significant enough ("the first Merrie Melodies star") to be of interest to a small but non-zero number of people researching the topic.

And there's plenty to say about the entity. It's not a stub. It's several paragraphs long. There's plenty of useful information about the entity. That's because the entity probably meets the WP:GNG, with a long entry in Toonpedia (considered reliable), a couple sentences in The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons (reliable I assume) and a couple paragraphs in Toonzone (don't know if that's reliable). There may be other sources out there too. It's at least on the bubble for GNG, and over the line in my view.

But even if it's not -- this article averages 19 views a day. 7,000 people a year. Explain to me how deleting this article will enhance the experience of those 7,000 people who are looking for information on this entity. It's really a simple question. No I don't want to hear about this pettifogging rule or that pettifogging rule. WP:IAR. "Deleting this article will enhance the experience of people searching on this term because ________". What goes in the blank? Fill in something compelling and I'll switch my vote. Can you? Herostratus (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: Well supported by reliable sources currently in the article, per WP:NEXIST: The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons, Reading the Rabbit: Explorations in Warner Bros. Animation, Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies: A Complete Illustrated Guide to the Warner Bros. Cartoons, Don Markstein's Toonopedia and That's All, Folks: The Art of Warner Bros. Animation. These independent secondary sources give background real-world information and commentary. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per Herostratus and Toughpigs comments above. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as it is informative, well-sourced, and of interest. Meets WP:GNG DiamondRemley39 (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-sourced and clearly passes notability standards as far as I can tell. — Hunter Kahn 15:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Weak keep: I don't know if I would characterize the article as "well-sourced", but there are a few halfway decent sources (and a few bad ones), and the topic does appear to be notable (if barely) as a sourced piece of animation history. Waggie (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Keep "the first Merrie Melodies star" is a notable achievement. Any history about animation mentions this character. Dream Focus 04:53, 27 January 2020 (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.