Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolescents and cartoon violence

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 no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adolescents and cartoon violence[edit]

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

This is a non-neutral essay aparrently representing the author's point of view. It was previously created in the same form at Violence in cartoons and changed by another editor to a redirect. I agree with that editor but in this case it's not a useful redirect so propose deletion. Bringing here for wider discussion. I42 (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its one sided but at least it's cited. The other side may be difficult to find and even more difficult to source. Should be tagged with POV concerns and improved. Move was done to better title the article based on its content and encourage neutrality.RadioFan (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Cited or not, it smacks of original research, and includes many statements not backed up by any references at all. If it stays one-sided, then it should go. (Where's my 10 lb. hammer when I need it?) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are published references in the article. The only neutrality problem which I generally concern myself about is the article being factually correct, which to me it doesn't look like there is a problem with it, apart from the opinions. Minima c (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cobalt, I'm right here. Sourced as it is, this is just cherry-picking information for the purpose of synthesis. Furthermore, it reads like a how-to and I'm convinced that most of the sources are unreliable -- what journalistic cred does source 3/4 have? What about #5? That one looks like a personal website. Source #6 also doesn't look reliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 23:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' significant subject, and references available. NPOV concerns are to be addressed by editing, not deletion DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Userfy: Delete from mainspace and userfy or incubate it. Should not be in the mainspace like this, goes against numerous policies and guidelines, too many to name. It's a valid topic, just not in this form. If it can't be userfied then delete until another editor can follow guidelines on making articles. —Mike Allen 02:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please note that Violence in Cartoons has also been created by an account that may be the same person. Though the topic is notable I think the various pages should, at least, be cleaned up and preferably drawn together. I have also moved Violence in Cartoons to Violence in cartoons, over the existing page, as a better heading case but I have merged the histories so that the previous content remains available. TerriersFan (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG - the amount of sourcing available means that the original research problems are fixable. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:35, 8 April 2010 (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.