Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog

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. Very clearly no consensus to delete here. Discussion about redirection can continue on the article talk pages, as necessary. A Train^talk 20:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog[edit]

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

Persistent edit-warring and blanking of these articles. AfD the lot, let's get some agreement as to whether they belong or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the lot. These are clearly real cartoons of the 1950s, produced by a major studio and distributed worldwide. I can see no reason why they fail any of our notability policies. I can see no reason to keep one article and delete the others, as has been happening repeatedly (not even merging, simply blanking them).

If sourcing is currently poor, then WP:SOFIXIT. This is US mass-market media within living memory. Surely the sources are out there for those who know animation history. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog - None of these individual cartoons pass WP:GNG. No in-depth sourcing about any of them. A table, with a brief description of each could be included there. Almost all the current articles consist almost entirely of plot summary. All pertinent info could be included in the rather brief target article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - btw, I'd be more than willing to create that table in the target if the end result is to redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know, many of the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies shorts are discussed extensively. Unfortunately, it's not exactly too easy to get a hold of a lot of these sources. I've personally been wanting to expand upon some of these articles for some time (and have done some before). I could imagine at least Don't Give Up the Sheep staying, as it was a milestones short, being the debut of Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog. Let's start with this. Unfortunately, that book preview only shows a tiny bit of observation about it, but if what is said about the other shorts are indication, a few things of substance may be said. I'll have to look more into this later. Kokoro20 (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm the author of these articles. At one point in time, they were awarded with a DYK for the research I did on which scenes were eventually censored. If I recall correctly, somebody then came along and deleted those facts (along with the references) claiming they were trivial, which triggered the corresponding images to be deleted, and then a year later they came back to complain that the articles contain no references. I just don't have the energy to devote to Wikipedia politics any more. --Skrapion (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Things like the censorship of the smoking break is exactly what makes these interesting as encyclopedia articles. But repeatedly blanking them and shouting "just not notable!" is so much easier. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of these deletions seem to have been done by a single editor. This is pretty much all they do, and their clear POV is evident from their username. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to the parent article, Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog; not independently notable. The content is all plot; a list of episodes in the parent article is sufficient. Plausible search terms, but stand-alone articles are not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To check whether significant sources could be discovered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let the page stay. I agree with Andy Dingley's claim and the fact that the two of them even had their own video game as well as other appearances in the Looney Tunes franchise. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all certainly the main article on the characters should stay, but I agree with Andy Dingley's reasoning in favor of keeping all of the articles in question here. Lepricavark (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note to closer - all the keep !votes are not based in policy (since they all rely on AD's argument - which is a wp:ILIKEIT argument). There has been zero shown they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, AD's argument is that the articles do not violate any policies, which is not a mere ILIKEIT argument. It isn't really necessary to advise the closing admin, but if you must do so, please don't misrepresent the opposing views. Lepricavark (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, saying an article doesn't meet GNG or any of the policies/guidelines to warrant inclusion, but it does not "violate any policies" is pretty much a paraphrase of "This is a really great article, and I think it should stay", which is one of the 3 concrete examples given in ILIKEIT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the fact that ILIKEIT is an essay which I am perfectly free to ignore, the keep !voters have not said that the article doesn't meet GNG or any of the policies/guidelines to warrant inclusion. In fact, this was AD's exact wording: I can see no reason why they fail any of our notability policies. Lepricavark (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an essay dealing specifically with arguments not to use in AfD discussions. Yes, you are free to ignore it. Others are free to take note of it. None of the arguments have shown that these articles pass WP:GNG. Saying something, without proof, is meaningless. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the essay is about, and it does not apply in any case because saying that the article does not fail notability polices is not the same as saying "I like it." Lepricavark (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most people are saying to keep the parent article, no consensus yet on the others.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:32, 10 October 2017 (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.