Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puny Express

Puny Express

[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!

Puny Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This is one of a very large number of articles on individual Woody Woodpecker cartoons, almost all of which were created by a user who was indeffed in 2015 for repeated copyright violations and sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Oanabay04. See also [1] and [2] for similar deletion discussions on a similar series of articles for Pink Panther cartoon articles. These discussions closed with a consensus to redirect them all to the appropriate list article, and I believe that redirecting all of these Woody Woodpecker cartoon articles to Woody Woodpecker filmography is called for here.

For this particular article, I could not find anything more than run of the mill coverage. The book cited here that is available online only shows very brief coverage of this particular cartoon, just a voice credit and nothing else. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep In my opinion, coverage in THREE books is significant enough coverage to pass notability guidelines. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Donaldd23: The subject of the article has a less than 1 sentence mention in Who's who in Animated Cartoons, that's it. That hardly counts as sigcov. See here: [3]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, THREE books is significant coverage, in my opinion. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand SIGCOV. It doesn't matter how many sources have passing mentions, we need 2+ non-passing ones. And we don't have this here, the cited books are barely a sentence or half mentions, some of them are just mentions in the list. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete; could not find WP:SIGCOV. There must be substantial reference to the subject to be counted to GNG. It does not matter if there are a million books that mention the topic, if they all just mention the topic once in a very brief sentence. DonaldD23 does not convince me. Second choice would be to redirect to a list article. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. As Sennecaster rightly notes, brief mentions in multiple books does not satisfy any applicable notability standard. The two books listed and a few more I found do nothing more than provide one-line listings or credits or a brief sentence fragment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Woody Woodpecker theatrical cartoons. Like most WW cartoons, it has no stand-alone notability but redirects are cheap. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)