Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWII Political Cartoons

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. –MuZemike 23:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WWII Political Cartoons

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

Nomination withdrawn in the light of recent changes to the article. I think the info should be merged elsewhere but that's outside the scope of this particular AfD. andy (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Contested prod. Extremely non-neutral synthesis with no supporting evidence - e.g much of Dr Seuss's work "was biased, racist, and even hateful", Spiegelman's work shows "opinionated racism", but the public found these cartoons to be "admirable" and "uplifting". From the author's comment that "This article may be deleted after a period of time but the information contained is currently necessary" I suspect this is a term paper. Fails WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS. andy (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this is someone's term paper, it probably got a large red "F". I think the nominator restrained himself in citing the policies that it was inconsistent with - WP:NOTESSAY and WP:FORUM are but two more that apply. Setting aside the factual inaccuracies, lack of sources, and verifiability of statements, the article is completely unclear on what it is to be about. The title suggests that it is about political cartoons created during WWII, but the article seems to be an indiscriminate list of people who either drew political cartoons during the war, or drew cartoons about the war long after it was over. That could be fixed with a re-write, so is not reason for deletion in and of itself, but the fundamental problems of the article still remain.Agent 86 (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for numerous reasons as above, but also FORK of American propaganda during World War II. It does not seem to have occurred to the author that political cartoons might have existed outside the USA. Whilst the topic is notable, the scope is enormous and an appropriate article could not start from here. -- (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since none of the original article remains and even a name change has been proposed I'm happy to change to Keep --AJHingston (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a despicable and blatant PoV fork. The list is no more than a biased slur against American cartoonists, avoiding WP:UNDUE would require at the very least coverage of Nazi childrens' propaganda as well as treatment of both sides of the issue and attention to whether or not the degree of racism was out of proprortion to that acceptable in everyday culture of the period. That said, we already do that at American propaganda during World War II and quite well at that. It's a shame none of those people are still alive, otherwise we could BLP speedy this as an attack page. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Art Spiegelman is still alive and doesn't come too well out of this article as an apparent apologist for his father's alleged racism... andy (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is highly notable - see World War II in cartoons, for example. The poor state of the current draft is unimportant because it is our clear editing policy to welcome weak starts and to improve them rather than to delete them. Warden (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly encyclopedia-worthy article subject. Horrendous article. What the Colonel says is true about standard practice being to keep bad starts rather than to kill them. Flag it and tag it, keep and improve. Carrite (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the above keep votes: I agree entirely this is a notable topic that should have an article. That article is American propaganda during World War II, this is a POV fork of that article. HominidMachinae (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this article is going to exist, it ought to cover not only American political cartoons from World War II, but also political cartoons from other countries from the war. Then it won't be a fork of American propaganda during World War II. I wonder when the original author's semester ends, though; it would be better if other editors didn't write his assignment for him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that could be covered here which wouldn't already be covered elsewhere? American propaganda during World War II#Comic books and cartoons and Walt Disney's World War II propaganda production give coverage to this event. The notable authors themselves can have information about them in their own articles. This is obvious a notable topic, but one which is covered elsewhere. Dream Focus 07:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors seem to think that this was a purely American phenomenon, as if this were Hollywood history. There seems to be a need for a high level article with a global perspective. Warden (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Good point. If there are nations that we don't have articles for yet, or there is a global view to be presented, then this article has a reason to exist. British propaganda during World War II doesn't mention any cartoons at all. And you did find a book that covers this topic. Dream Focus 08:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article does little (nothing?) to distinguish this topic from general topics of Editorial cartoon and Propaganda, and renders it largely a a trivial intersection between them and other existing articles on more specific topics that provided the instances of this general topic that occurred during WWII (David Low, American propaganda during World War II#Comic books and cartoons, Walt Disney's World War II propaganda production etc). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability clearly established per excellent improvements by editor Warden. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't the issue. Does this article contribute anything that's not already done better elsewhere? andy (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current version of the article seems to cover the subject well enough, and notability has been established. This article does have information not found elsewhere, and exists to show an overall view of this subject, and also can aid in navigation to various specific articles. Dream Focus 05:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable topic and the problems with the article have now been corrected. The article should be renamed something like Political cartoons of World War II though as the current name violates several of the naming conventions. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is now sourced and improved compared with pre-AfD version, there have certainly been enough sources provided to indicate notability and potential for expansion. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article looks nothing like it did when it was proposed for AfD. The pre-AfD version definitely deserved deletion, but the newly-revised version is properly sourced to establish notability, the sources are reliable, and the information is neutral and international. OCNative (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Political cartoons produced during [random war] commented upon the events, personalities and politics of the war. Governments used them for propaganda and public information. Individuals expressed their own political views and preferences." Follow with an {{example farm}}. Rinse and repeat for a bland, generic, uninformative and unencyclopaedic article on any random war since the invention of the printing press. 10:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree, but that's not what the AfD was about. Grounds for another AfD maybe? Anyway I was going to close this debate as a non-admin because of speedy keep but I don't think we're there yet. andy (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use this AfD to discuss these problems, rather than rushing to close it? Whilst many individual WWII-era cartoons and cartoonists may be notable, unless we have reliable third party sources describing "WWII Political Cartoons" as a genre, then that topic is not notable -- and an article that goes beyond boilerplate+examplefarm isn't possible without WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because this AfD is contaminated by the earlier discussion which is about a different topic. I'm happy to AfD the current version of the article if any suggested merge fails, but that's for later. As it stands the current version is arguably notable but of course just because a thing is notable doesn't mean it needs a separate article. andy (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Subject is of cultural relevance, well sourced. Title seems to be appropriate, article quality is start class, possibly c class. In terms of the above debate, political cartoons from a contentious era can easily be a broad enough subject with enough available sources to be a great article. The article is good, the subject doesn't fit anywhere else very well(politics of WWII maybe?). i kan reed (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.