Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vietnamese animation

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese animation

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

There's nothing to this article. It's a shell with a small list of studios and animators, none of who are notable. Can't see what use this article is in its current form - and has been like this for 4 years. Time to get rid? Rayman60 (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {{Expand Vietnamese|Hoạt hình Việt Nam|date=April 2016}}. With the benefit of Goggle Translation, we see a much more well-developed article. Lacking in inline citations, yes, but I'm not convinced that a main article on Vietnam's animation industry is as non-notable as suggested. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did since see that a number of countries have articles which inclined me to think there could be scope for this article, but only 14 countries have one in that template (with the surprising omission of the UK, who have an article on the history but not of current animation). That raises the question why don't we have 200+ such articles, where is the animation industry of Swaziland and Nicaragua for example? This is why I had a little doubt about whether this article only existed because someone bothered to make it and no-one bothered for the other countries....anyway AfD'd it for opinions from those who may know better than I do. Rayman60 (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm just not seeing a persuasive, policy-based argument, nor do I have anything to say about the relative merits of Vietnam's animation sector vs. that of, say Swaziland. Nor do I think I need to. Just to point out that Wikipedia:ITDOESNTEXIST is an argument to be avoided here. And every article only exists because someone bothered to make it. Vietnamese animation seems to me to be in need of expansion, incorporating sourced content from its Vietnamese wiki article, not deletion. Template:Interlanguage link could also be used to convert some of those redlinks to blue links to the Vietnam project, I daresay, but that would take some work. Anyway, WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:IMPATIENT also applies regarding the small size or current state of the article. And as with his nomination for the list of Vietnamese films, this apparent assumption of their inherent non-notability is odd and possibly an example of the kind of WP:Systemic bias we're trying to counter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For one thing, the corresponding article on the Vietnamese Wikipedia [1] is pretty substantial, so don't be fooled by this article's early stages. As for WP:GNG (which is I guess the policy the nominator is arguing under?), I found quite a few sources of admittedly varying quality ([2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], for example). Can't see a compelling argument for deletion, even though the article needs work. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 20:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve if it can happen. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 25 April 2016 (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.