Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Midnight Snack

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. Tone 17:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The Midnight Snack

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

The Midnight Snack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Well it looks like the party is over. Edit warring may be wrong, but Koavf's fundamental objection to this article is correct: it is nowhere near meeting WP:GNG, and virtually the entire article would appear to be original research. I was unable to find any coverage in reliable sources online, and was only able to find mere-mentions on Google Scholar. The single citation in the article neglects to include a page number, and is not a book searchable online, so it doesn't help us much either (and one source wouldn't be enough for WP:GNG anyway). Redirect to Tom and Jerry filmography#1940–1958: Hanna-Barbera/MGM Cartoons per WP:NEPISODE If significant coverage in reliable sources can at some point be found, we can always restore the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect Per WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RELIABLE, WP:SOURCE, WP:NOTABLE: most of our bedrock policies. See also: I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. – Jimbo Wales, 16 May 2006 I want to make explicitly clear that this applies to other "articles" like (e.g.) Tom and Jerry: The Mansion Cat. Somehow, we are having a referendum on whether or not articles need to have sources. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @7&6=thirteen, SonicClub, and Visokor:. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animation#Lots_of_unsourced,_non-notable_articles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - There seems to be no sourced info worth saving, so deletion with a new redirect seems like the best idea. TTN (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Some coverage of the cartoon's history is covered in these books, [1], [2]. This reference says this specific cartoon won critical acclaim, which would imply that significant enough criticsm is out there to warrant an article if we go back into publication archives. This book attacks this cartoon for being racist.4meter4 (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  This is enough to sway me to keep, particularly the coverage in the first source and the assertion in the third source that significant critical acclaim exists. The book criticizing the racism unfortunately cuts its free preview 2 sentences in to its discussion of Midnight Snack in particular, so I can't verify that there's significant coverage there, although there very well may be. These sources are also all RS that establish that The Midnight Snack introduced several important elements of Tom and Jerry cartoons, which would likely make the cartoon of academic interest and thus is an indication of possible further coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as per the identification of reliable sources coverage detailed above which means the subject has been shown to pass WP:GNG imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

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.