Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Little Soap and Water

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) CTJF83 chat 22:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Soap and Water

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

Article about a 6 minute animated show. A search for references found a few minor mentions, ~~fails~~ appeared to fail WP:V and WP:N Jeepday (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update language based on comments and references supplied by User:MichaelQSchmidt, Jeepday (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Article has been tagged as unreferenced since October 2006. Article prodded on 31 July 2010 Prod removed on 4 August by IP, no explanation no improvement. I Prodded it on 16 December 2010 (did not notice the original prod). Prod removed with comment "remove WP:PROD tag - deletion has previously been contested". Article has been deprodded twice without improvement addressing concerns, nor with any statement of potential notability. Jeepday (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think that the second de-prodder, fixing your error, was under any such obligation to do that? Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I made no statement of obligation, only facts. Jeepday (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs sourcing... not deletion. Verification is eminently available, and notability is found through its history. This is not "just" a six-minute animated show, but rather a piece of American cinema from 1935... an early Betty Boop cartoon whose existance has made it into the enduring record of early American cinema[1] Anyone want to bet that this is not in national archives? Or wish to bet it is not used someone in teaching animation history? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN the burden to supply references is on the person wishing to keep or restore content. A stronger argument for keep would be the addition of WP:RS that show WP:N. WP:V is not about betting if sources exist it is about adding them to the article. Jeepday (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. WP:V is NOT about adding sources... it is about the topic being verifiable... which it is. And I am surprised that you flatly stated the topic fails WP:V even after having written that you found a few references. So feel free to strike the claim that it fails WP:V from your nomination. And note, for a 1935 film to meet WP:NF, the GNG is not the mandate. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found minor mentions, which do not meet significant coverage as required by WP:NF, nor did what I found verify a significant portion of the article, Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. If I look for references and can't find support for the majority of the content it fails WP:V "readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". I am glad that you found reference and added them to the article, thank you. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome... and please note for the future that significant coverage is NOT an absolute mandate of WP:NF, and meeting the GNG is not the only criteria that is to be considered, specially as it is often totally inapplicable to pre-WW2 films whose sources have evaporated. And also note, that per WP:V, and even without their checking the information about the film as found in multiple reliable scondary sources, readers can also check the film itself as an aceptable primary source.[2] So again, please feel free to strike your incorrect claim that the topic fails WP:V, as that is patently not the case. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep glad you found some references, why not add them to the article rather than trying to delete it? As an aside, there is no requirement on deprodders to explain why they have declined a prod, and if an article has been deprodded then it is not supposed to be prodded again. Ϣere SpielChequers 02:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per deletion policy and WP:BEFORE, expansion and sourcing has begun. Merry Christmas. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news archive search for the title and "Betty Boop" show a reviewer in a major newspaper saying it was his favorite. [3] Unfortunately I can't read what else is in there. This is mentioned in various books though. MichaelQSchmidt's argument is quite convincing, this a notable work. Dream Focus 04:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided demonstrate that the article passes both WP:V and WP:N. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Proposal was based on article being unreferenced, it now seems adequately referenced.Opbeith (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The first mention of Fleischer Studios in the article should have been enough to stay the nominator's hand (not to mention Betty Boop), as it was one of the most historically significant studios in early animation. The bland description above of the subject as merely a "6 minute animated show" is misleading if not completely inaccurate. Per WP:AGF, we should assume that the omission of the subject's defining elements was due to ignorance, not intentional. It's usually not good practice to nominate articles for deletion when you have no familiarity with the subject matter. postdlf (talk) 20:50, 27 December 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.