Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartoon physics

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon physics

Impressionistic pop culture cruft that is very hard to verify other than through other fan writing and the cartoons themselves. Worth being mentioned (but not elaborated on) in cartoon, but certainly not worthy of a separate encyclopedic article. This goes for sub-articles like cartoon collision physics as well. Delete. Peter ^Isotalo 09:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, seems like a good enough article. — JIP | Talk 09:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a fun article. Some verifiability in article but could use more. Capitalistroadster 10:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - boy, what a killjoy! - DavidWBrooks 10:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm an animator; this subject has a long history, and is discussed in the animation literature. An encyclopedia article must not be deleted just because it is humorous! The sub-article could be merged here, though. --Janke | Talk 10:54:08, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
• Keep - good article, illustrates an important principle of comedy, namely the "plausible impossible" RMoloney 10:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Janke, merge sub-articles . --Moritz 11:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with cartoon. While this article and sub-articles demonstrates a beautiful interplay of haughty seriousness and humor, it should be confined to its area. The real-life recognition of its validity (Esquire and IEEE) require that it gets elaboration, but only in its context. --NielsenGW 11:30, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you check the cartoon page? Not the place for this! --Janke | Talk 12:24:18, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
    • The main article is extremely short considering how major a subject it is. Whether or not you want to keep this, cartoon should be expanded and include some of this info. Also, the nominee needs to have a few references. Fan websites and direct observations of cartoons are not enough considering the whimsical nature of the article. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Did you check "What links here" on Cartoon physics? We're talking animation here, not just cartoons, which has several definitions. --Janke | Talk 17:08:47, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
        • Animation can certainly exclude cartoons, but cartoons can't exclude animation. It needs to be covered a bit more thoroughly. I've brought it up at talk:cartoon for those who wish to discuss this further. / Peter ^Isotalo 06:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
          • This is absolutely true. I have created the article Animated cartoon, formerly just a redirect, and added a "Main entry" link in the animation section of Cartoon. OK? --Janke | Talk 06:53:52, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
• Keep, valid encyclopedia topic. Punkmorten 12:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This article is featured on Wikipedia:Unusual_articles ! Quote: These articles are valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, but are somewhat odd, whimsical, or... --Janke | Talk 12:47:06, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
• Strong Keep deleting good but different articles like this one is like trying to delete the heart of wikipedia. (by User:Bandraoi, who forgot to sign... inserted by Janke)
• Keep: Trivial but valid. The term has fairly widespread coverage, although this is one of those articles that attracts the obsessive crowd, and the wiki- structure means that it can become a tangle in an instant. The term may be fan coined, but it has been used by the creators of the form (incl. Chuck Jones in his autobiography, Chuck Amock). This differs, IMO, from the fictions about fictions and goes on to critical observation (when it isn't just degenerating into "list of funny stuff I've seen in cartoons"). Geogre 14:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

  I wouldn't call this subject "trivial". These laws have been de facto "working rules" in animation for well over 80 years now - and just because they are funny, and make a Wikipedia article funny, isn't a reason for AfD, if you ask me. This is as serious as a treatise on a painter's tools, brushes, canvas, oils etc. But you are correct that this might grow uncontrollably - it sure needs to be watched. (I got carried away once here, too but was reverted - good thing, too! ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:46:55, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

• Keep much better than the article about animated breast physics we saw here recently, does the job for me. The idea of characters not succumbing to forces of gravity is not restricted to cartoons though, see: Arthur Dent and Ben Bova's The Man Who Hated Gravity for starters. Alf ^melmac 15:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep an actual, documented phenomena, not the physics but the fact that many cartoons even by different studios seem to have developed commom "laws" despite their being completely arbitrary. --Outlander 15:44, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - a glance at what links there shows that it is a wanted article. -- RHaworth 15:50:42, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
• Keep — a reasonable topic for an article providing some insights into human psychology. — RJH 18:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -Fang Aili 18:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Optichan 21:40, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Genuine term in real use. Valid cultural observation. There are issues about what is factual, what is objective, what is neutral... but these problems exist in all articles on art or culture, e.g. Postmodernism. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• !!!qƏƏĶ ġñǒrłS -- BD2412 ^talk 02:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The sub-articles should be nominated together separately from this, but they should either be merged and redirectd into this or simply deleted. -Sean Curtin 07:03, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Uhm, don't nominate articles if you only want them merged; you don't need a AfD-vote to decide that. Just marge them with or without previous discussion. Consensus can assumed unless clearly stated otherwise in an obviously well-motivated merger. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This article is a great example of why wikipedia exists. --Jacqui M Schedler 16:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This article is fairly relevant, and should remain in the Wikipedia. --driscolj 21:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and merge Cartoon collision physics into it. Owen× ☎ 23:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or at least Merge Very interesting. I think it is appropriate when tied to cartoon. Psy guy ^(talk) 01:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep, I guess ---CH (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Kýýp. If we have articles on pop records, and they're pop culture and can't be verified apart from the works themselves and reviews by fans, then why not this? --Damian Yerrick 01:28, 13 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.