Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Goose-Step

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Goose-Step

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article has been unsourced since creation in 2005. A google search returns only hits for fragments about it, as exist for any political cartoon. There's no indication that the article has any notability outside of the fact it exists. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the sort of article I like to try to keep (the kind about something quite specific but perhaps historically significant), but after doing a pretty good search I'm not coming up with enough to justify WP:GNG. It's from Punch btw, and the image is almost certainly a copyvio (to be dealt with on Commons). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The image is in the Library of Congress which usefully says "rights not evaluated". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Maintenance templates aren't a rationale for deletion per WP:NODEADLINE but this is a pretty clear failure of GNG and is essay-like. Some references in secondary sources as a "notable political cartoon" but nothing substantive. If anything can be salvaged, it should be merged to the artist's page. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that, to begin with, this satisfies criteria 4 of WP:NBOOK. I am under the impression that this particular cartoon is and has been habitually used, more or less nationwide, for many years in GCSE and O Level modern history textbooks, teaching materials, school lessons and examinations. (Possibly A-level as well). [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. It certainly has been set as a question in exams for, for example, the Midland Examining Group (MEG) [8]. You may have difficulty finding this sort of thing with a search engine because these sort of sources sometimes only describe the thing as "a British cartoon" about such and such. There is substantial coverage, such as New Statesman [9], but it isn't easy to search for. James500 (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did find some of this, and the artist is very famous. Per James500, I think it passes WP:NBOOK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to E. H. Shepard. James' links show the picture has been reproduced, but none of them are significant coverage. #1 is a reprint without attribution to the author or commentary. #2 is a reprint asking the reader to do their own analysis. #3 has no preview to judge. #4 is another reprint without attribution or commentary. #5 has no preview to judge. #6 provides a little context, no attribution, and asks the reader to do their own analysis. #7 is the same as one and four. #8 seems to be referring to the cartoon, but I can't find the actual image and there's no context or analysis. #9 is a description of the image, calling it Shepard's "strongest (and funniest) cartoons".

As it is, the bulk of this article is OR. Based on the sources provided here, it will remain that way. None of the incoming links are in-line references, so getting rid of this won't adversely affect other articles. Per #9, I think adding a minimum of information to the cartoonist's article is the best course of action. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm also wary of using NBOOK criteria is something that is...not a book. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 14:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per James500. GenuineArt (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to E. H. Shepard. Using the cartoon in textbooks to me is not sufficient for notability, unless the work specifically addresses the content of the cartoon and not poses the question to students to think about. But it is attached to a notable artist so there's no reason mention cannot be made there. Keep in mind, the entire "interpretion" section on the article violates OR without sources to back it up, so that would nix most of the article. --Masem (t) 15:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references; this reads like an essay by a student based on their textbook. Being included in a bunch of different versions of textbooks on the same official curriculum is not sufficient for notability. I don't see any reason to include this in E. H. Shepard. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR - no references, and none of the ones shown seem to satisfy WP:GNG. I don't have any problem with a merge, but you'd need to add sources to the section that you add. SportingFlyer talk 06:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references means this fails WP:V. Yes, the fact that the cartoon was reproduced does show that it exists, but the article is all unsourced WP:OR. -- RoySmith (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:GNG. No reference at all for years as per WP:OR --Jay (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2018 (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.