Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drooler's Delight

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 redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography#1949. There's consensus here that notability has not been established; no one has objected to redirecting as an alternative to deletion. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drooler's Delight[edit]

[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)

Fails NFILM, chock full of original research. I could only find the usual SPS like iMDB in a before search. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Books cited in article are enough for WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 01:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not true at all, GNG would call for at least three sources. That's not met here. And per SL93, one of the two listed sources isn't even a book! Are you even looking at the references in question before you !vote? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is only one book cited in the article and that encyclopedia appears to include all animated cartoons from 1911 to 1998. Anyone can tell that the The Walter Lantz Cartune Encyclopedia isn't an actual encyclopedia if they click on the link. It is actually a fan-made unofficial website. I did find this which isn't enough. SL93 (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You do know that these cartoon shorts were HUGE when originally released? Just because newspapers articles from the time aren't online now, or are behind paywalls, doesn't mean these shorts weren't notable upon release. Historical context must be considered. The notability requirements are meant to weed out people who make small independent releases and to prevent them from having their own articles on Wikipedia, they aren't meant to remove films/shorts from the classic Hollywood era that doesn't have the coverage of their time archived online. Woody Woodpecker was released by a MAJOR studio (Universal) and had almost 200 shorts. This was like #42...if it wasn't notable upon release, 150 more WOULDN'T have been made. Common sense needs to be applied to these shorts. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not about if they were notable when released, it's about if they are notable today. There was obviously no Wikipedia in 1949, and I don't think the creators were deciding to release more shorts based on if they would meet Wikipedia's GNG 70 years later. If sources cannot be found to justify the article's retention, it should not be kept. GNG can't just be ignored because the studio is notable, see WP:INHERIT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now, you know that's not true! 90% of films made in the 20s/30s/40s/50s aren't notable today. Go to any person and ask them to name 10 films from those decades and you'll have a hard time finding anyone who can. Films are notable if they were EVER notable, not just still notable. When was the last time you heard anyone talk about The Menace (1932 film)? It's not notable today, but was when it was released. But according to your logic, you would have it deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is a terrible example. The Menace has significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that significant coverage of this short exists, and just vaguely claiming "it was notable when it aired" without providing any evidence of said coverage or notability is not persuasive. And unlike this article, The Menace actually has references to contemporary newspapers showing SIGCOV, which is not met at the article we are actually discussing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have a paid subscription to newspapers.com and I searched that time period. All articles referring to the short only had a quick trivial mention about it airing before a theatrical film. SL93 (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - And newspapers.com has every newspaper ever printed online? Every magazine? Every periodical? Every book? It is not the end all, be all of sources. Just because you 'say' you looked, doesn't mean anything. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I never said any of those things. It certainly means a lot when you don't have anything to show that it passes the notability guideline other than assumptions that this specific short is notable. SL93 (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - They were so HUGE and from a MAJOR studio that this one wasn't even covered by newspapers when it was released. "They aren't meant to remove films/shorts from the classic Hollywood era that doesn't have the coverage of their time archived online."<citation needed> SL93 (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG, redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography. Binksternet (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Entry is notable for being the final entry in the first phase of the series. The article lists many notable items but needs better sourcing.Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am once again asking for sources with significant coverage that demonstrate notability. None of the keep supporters have identified a single source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A "final entry in the first phase of the series" is not a source of notability. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I beg to differ, I think that is significant, as the next film was 2 years later and had a redesign of Woody. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm pretty sure that Binksternet means Wikipedia notability which this article still doesn't meet. SL93 (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Close to a consensus here (disregarding !votes which aren't aligned with policy), but relisting to try and achieve one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography. From when I've looked at U.S. newspapers from the 1940s and 1950s, typically the feature films were the ones identified in the movie ads and discussed in reviews, while the accompanying short films were much less noticed. It's possible that other, more specialized, publications of that era gave significant coverage to the cartoon shorts, but I'm not just going to assume the existence of reliable sources with significant coverage (as called for by WP:NFILM) with regard to this specific film before those sources are found. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography#1949 - There are currently not enough coverage in sources listed in the article to pass either the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, and no additional examples of significant coverage in reliable sources has been presented in this AFD. The argument that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is invalid in a deletion discussion unless those sources can actually be demonstrated to exist. Redirecting to the main filmography article is a reasonable compromise, and if any sources are eventually found that provides significant coverage of this short film, the article can easily be restored then. Rorshacma (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2021 (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.