Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dicky Moe
- 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 redirect to
]Dicky Moe
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
I am afraid this topic fails to meet GNG/
WP:NFILM. During my BEFORE I failed to find any reference to this outside a few passing mentions that it exists and is a parody of Moby Dick (here's the best one). The cited Encyclopedia entry is sadly just a mention in passing; this short does not have its own entry - the edition I checked (newer, the 2008 edition of the same cited encyclopedia) only mentions the subject in the main Tom and Jerry article, in the timeline entry for 1962 as one of the T&J releases for that year ("...“Calypso Cat” (Deitch/June 1); “Dicky Moe” (Deitch/July 1); “The Tom and Jerry Cartoon Kit” (Deitch/Aug. 1);..."). It seems this short doesn't have anything else to say about itself outside "I exist"; no reliable source discusses its history, inspiration, reception, significance, etc. At best, this can be redirected to some list of Tom and Jerry shorts, if one is created (or maybe there is a better list someone can find)? Unless someone can find sources I missed, I am afraid this is the best we can do. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The quality of the nomination and its BEFORE may be judged from the fact that it cites a redlink, not having managed to find the ]
- Keep Multiple books cover animated shorts in detail from this era, including the one cited in the article that covers this film as well.Also covered in Tom and Jerry: The Definitive Guide to Their Animated Adventures By Patrick Brion 1990. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Donaldd23, As I have demonstrated in the OP, the book cited in the article DOES NOT cover this animated short in any detail. As for Tom and Jerry: The Definitive Guide to Their Animated Adventures, please tell me how you got access to this work? I don't see it searchable on Google Books or Amazon, nor was I able to locate this book anywhere else I looked. Anyway, looking at sample images like [1] it is possible this book has a paragraph about the cartoon - but what this sample also shows is that the coverage in that book doesn't go beyond pure plot summary. In fact, who knows, our article may be a copyvio from this book, since both are just plot summaries. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Since when does Wikipedia require the contents of EVERY book to be available and searchable online? That is NOT a requirement. The film is covered in the book, that's enough. As to how I "got access to this work", I don't need to prove to you that I own this book. It exists and it covers this film, that makes it pass, at the very least, ]
- The burden of proof is on you to show that the source meets the definition of significant coverage as required by GNG. If you don't have access to the source, then you have no way of knowing what the source says about the topic. The very act of being mentioned in a book is not significant coverage in itself. TTN (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to the main list of cartoons. One keep is a completely dishonest attempt at wikilawyering, and the other discusses coverage without actually providing any context as to what pertinent information exists in the source. I cannot seem to find a searchable copy of the Definitive Guide listed, but the single preview picture I can find shows coverage is limited to one or two paragraphs and some screenshots of each cartoon. The text is illegible, but I cannot imagine the context is more than a minor plot summary. If you have access to the source and can provide some quotes pertaining to non-plot information, please let me know. The source in the article seems to be no different and currently is not used to cite anything beyond a single date. TTN (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Tom and Jerry filmography. The only coverage appears to be in sources that cover all Tom and Jerry shorts, with no indication that this one was particularly acclaimed or distinctive; there's hardly anything here but plot summary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Found this review [[2]] Donaldd23 (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- reliable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)]
- Redirect to talk) 11:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)]
- Redirect to Tom and Jerry filmography - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Tom and Jerry filmography - Not sufficient coverage in reliable sources to support an independent article, but already covered at the main filmography article, so it can be redirected there. Rorshacma (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Articles on every episode of Tom and Jerry, but not for Monty Python's Flying Circus? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:37, 24 April 2021 (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.