Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vanishing of S.S. Willie

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. If editors are still set on converting this to a Redirect, you can continue the discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanishing of S.S. Willie

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

The Vanishing of S.S. Willie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film. Although it has received coverage in the media, it's been because it was immediately released after Mickey Mouse turned PD, but not because of the quality of the work. Bedivere (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only made the page because of the high volume of media mentions it got including from credible online entertainment sources like
Joblo.com
, i would argue that most short films don't nearly get that level of exposure.
Do I think this is a quality film, no, but that is not the thing being discussed. Jonastav89 (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but such coverage is only the result of Mickey entering PD, not because of the actual "film", which is just a YouTube video. Bedivere (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel if a piece of media get's this amount of media-attention, for whatever reason, it transcends "just being a YouTube-video" even disregarding quality.
A similar, but maybe more high profile case, to me would be Absolute Proof which was nothing more then a extended low quality internet video with no cinematic quality, and can not even be seen online anymore. However it got a spike in popularity when it won a couple of Razzies.
This is maybe not a direct comparison but I am just making the argument why I personally think high profile media attention outways "quality" or "viewership". Jonastav89 (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This from Yahoo has links to stories in Deseret News and the Huff Post [1],I think with the Bloody Disgusting and rest, although short, we're ok for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    List of creative Mickey Mouse works after entering the public domain. As seen here: [2], the video only has 26,000 views at the time of writing, which is relatively small by YouTube standards. If we are arguing in favour of keeping because of significant media coverage, then that would mean any old YouTube video that's been covered by the media would warrant an article. I just don't think this video is popular enough to need its own article. I don't see the harm in redirecting to the list in which it is included, however. Nintentoad125 (talk
    )
  • Keep. Notability is not indicated by numbers of views or perceived quality. This absolutely passes GNG. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG, being of poor quality has no relevance to anything with notability.★Trekker (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The things I look for with film related AfDs is this: has the film received reviews in RS? If not, has the film received coverage in RS? If so, is the coverage based on press releases or do they all substantially say the same thing (minus of course any coverage that could be a reaction as opposed to stating that something exists)? I don't have any answers to this, but I will examine what is in the article, what's out there, and what can be used to expand the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm honestly undecided. I won't fight against it being kept but I do want to note that almost all of the coverage is essentially a reprint of a press release and/or a brief mention in relation to the slew of media that is coming out now that SW is in the public domain. I think it's certainly possible for more coverage to come about, but short films tend to get overlooked pretty regularly. If they don't get coverage when they first release or premiere, then that tends to kind of be it unless the director puts out later notable work. I'm just worried that if more coverage doesn't come about that it won't hold up to scrutiny if this were re-nominated in say, 4-5 months or a year from now. It's the first of its type, but that's not always a guarantee of notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's a footnote to a larger story about the original film passing into public domain. It's got coverage, passes GNG. Toughpigs (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Vanishing_of_S.S._Willie&oldid=1195241615"