Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey's Choo-Choo

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. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey's Choo-Choo[edit]

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

Only a short explanation that it's a cartoon isn't enough to make it an article Mbch331 (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a valid stub with plenty of room for expansion. The topic is notable as demonstrated by the large number of Google books hits. Pburka (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the article is short has absolutely no bearing on whether it should be kept or not. On the other hand, the fact that the cartoon is referenced in scholarly work (e.g. [1]) certainly suggests that it should be kept and tagged with {{expand}}. In any case, outright deletion is an unacceptable solution since this should at the very least be redirected to some appropriate target. Pichpich (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all articles have to start somewhere, this was tagged for deletion within an hour of creation! Ϣere SpielChequers 20:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep — i added six sources to newly created further reading section, could have added plenty more (thanks, WereSpielChequers!). this is clearly notable, discussed over many years in many, many contexts. easily meets gng. afd is not about whether there's enough in the article to make it an article, it's about whether there's enough in the world to make it an article. perhaps nominator could look over WP:BEFORE? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — i fixed this up a little, just to show what could be done. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To me, the nominator says "It's too short. Instead of expanding it myself, I think it should be removed entirely". WP:BEFORE and all that. →Σ τ c. 22:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More reliable sources added to article. It appears that the nominator may not have followed the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which, if true, nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. There's no mention in the nomination regarding the availability of reliable sources. The nomination's basis is upon content within the article, rather than upon searching for reliable sources, as required per WP:BEFORE requirements. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:34, 21 September 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.