- 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. NawlinWiki 03:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page has no substantial content. jlao 04 10:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. - jlao 04 10:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the article is poorly-written at present, but that's grounds for improvement, not deletion. The three Roger Rabbit shorts (this, Roller Coaster Rabbit and Trail Mix-Up) are clearly notable enough, being spin-offs of a major feature film. A screen shot, infobox and a bit of detail on the animators, director, etc. for each one would improve all three of these articles no end. ~Matticus TC 10:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This passes WP:NOTFILM. It was released theatrically as a "double bill" with Honey, I Shrunk the Kids per IMDB, and per disney.com was shown in every North American theatre that Honey was originally shown in. That means at the very least that it was released nationwide in two countries and was shown in 1,371 theatres, which is more than the one country and 200 theatres required by WP:NOTFILM. --Charlene 11:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Many of the early Disney and Warner Brothers theatrical animated shorts have articles, and if anything their rarity after 1970 or so has made them more notable rather than less. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above. —Wrathchild (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable and verifiable film. Just needs expansion, is all. 23skidoo 16:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. New animated shorts prior to children's films, especially animated features, are fairly common today in the U.S., but were completely absent for decades prior to the Roger Rabbit shorts. -Acjelen 16:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - for clearly satisfying film notability criteria. I would remind the nominator that poor article quality is not really grounds for deletion. -bobby 16:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I added 2 New York Times articles which discuss the importance of the film. It was a nostalgia blast in 1989 to see a cartoon before the movie, after many years of none. Edison 17:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems notable enough to me. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 23:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 20:33, 3 November 2006 (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.