Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Red Riding Hood (Disney)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. (non-admin closure) mono 20:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Little Red Riding Hood (Disney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable movie with no statement of notability. Reference to IMDB (only ref) and fails to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability_(films) mono 03:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although I remember this cartoon, not enough sourced information is given to pass WP's notability standards.Borock (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - historic 1922 silent cartoon by Disney and pioneer animator Rudolf Ising has sufficient mention in Google books should anybody bother to dig through them, such as this one, which actually asserts that it was "listed on the American Film Institute's 10 Most Wanted Films for Archival Preservation..." - and it took me all of six seconds to find this. This excerpt alone is enough to establish its notability in the history of animation, not to mention that it was indeed pioneering work by Disney and Ising. B.Wind (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep of a film that easily meets WP:NF through its significance to cinematic history, and it still being written of nearly 90 years after its release for its historical context to the film industry, Walt Disney, Rudolf Ising, and early silent animation. Notable since 1922 is still notable in 2010. And to the nom... and with respects... sourcing was quite easy to find in both books and news. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Might be a small film, but a noted animator's first film is always notable. I do also want to see if it's because the film is pre-1923 and out of copyright if a YouTube link to the actual film would be allowed in the article in this case. Nate • (chatter) 08:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per coverage found. Here is an article I found to add to the pile. :) Erik (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One of the earliest films by one of the tippy-top major filmmakers of the 20th century not "notable"? File this AFD under W for "WTF?" Dekkappai (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per above. i saw this in prod summary a few days back and i was thinking where i have seen this before. thankfully we have people who know their films way better than me to save such nominations :-).--Sodabottle (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The LA Times Article on the finding/preservation, and the article at disneyshorts together contain plenty of information to expand our article on this short film to quite a healthy state. Dekkappai (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2010 (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.