Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideology of Tintin

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. John254 00:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology of Tintin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A front for a whole spew of OR and heavily breaking NPOV - at most, it warrants a section in the parent article. Will ^(talk) 15:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is either an excellent article or a terrible one. I don't know which, and it depends entirely on how well it sticks to its sources. I think it warrants further investigation, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and not support deletion at present: the article has a very long history (since 2003!) and hundreds of edits from dozens of editors, so I doubt it's some guy's POV screed. Maybe bring it to the attention of the comics wikiproject for closer looking-into. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That fact that Andrew is voting Keep prevents me from weighing in with Delete on this one for the moment. I agree with his suggestion, although it may be this is a POV fork from the main
    WP:OR it should be deleted. Eusebeus 16:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It's not even a controversial article - if an article's that old, it should be NPOV. It's really not. Will ^(talk) 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it's POV, what is the point of view? And why can't it be made more neutral? Most of the article is directly backed up by the Sadoul and Peeters books. Instead of just slapping a delete tag on it, why say what the problems are, if you don't feel like fixing them yourself? Zompist 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup if needed~(i.e. add specific sources to individual statements, not general sources to the whole of the article). There is nothing inherently POV about the "Ideology of Tintin", and the very recent British uproar over
  Fram 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I don't have access to the sources but will
  assume that they support the content; more specific citations would be beneficial but their lack is no reason to delete. Quite an interesting article, and after reading it a rename as proposed by Fram is probably warranted. Carlossuarez46 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - I have to agree. The answer is not deleting it but instead verifying the reliabilty of the article, and making sure it has a npov. Tag it appropriately. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although this article will need to be watched pretty carefully to make sure it doesn't go off on strange tangents. It's certainly possible to write an article about this kind of thing - I wrote a paper along these lines a few years ago at uni, in fact - and this looks like a sincere attempt to produce just that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now; I'm pretty sure the topic is discussed elsewhere. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per The Random Editor J. T. Lance 21:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]