Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ski for Two

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ski for Two[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)

Not notable, fails NFILM and GNG. From a before search, the only coverage I could find was very basic mentions, nothing more than a sentence or two plot summary. The encyclopedia sources in the article don't provide significant coverage, and The Walter Lantz Cartune Encyclopedia is actually a self-published source, not a professionally published encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Entry has more than enough professionally published sources to warrant keeping (The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons, Happy Holidays—Animated! A Worldwide Encyclopedia of Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and New Year's Cartoons on Television and Film + cartoon research site by film professional Jerry Beck). Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Ski for Two received significant coverage in this article published in Animation which discusses the faster pace at which Darrell Calker conducted the score and how it relates to the racing animation, as well as an analysis of the panning technique that was used and how it is used to show Woody's POV. It was the basis of a lawsuit between Walter Lantz and Toys "R" Us, see coverage in the LA Times and the SF Examiner. Listed among the all-time best Woody Woodpecker films [1] and The Hollywood Reporter wrote that it was the first of Lantz's cartoons to be developed around "situations rather than gags" [2]. DanCherek (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wk3V, DanCherek and Captain Raju's rationales. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Along with the other sources, there is Cartoon Carnival. SL93 (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Other editors have demonstrated notability. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – article is well sourced and is a notable film in this series. Absurd to think otherwise. 2600:1000:B166:A0B8:79DB:CEDF:42C7:CC81 (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not all Woody Woodpecker cartoons are going to be presumed notable. However, the sources presented in this discussion show that this one is likely notable in its own right. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:24, 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.