Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goofy holler (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:45, 16 September 2008

Goofy holler

Article about a non-notable sound effect, used in a few dozen Disney movies and hardly at all outside the Waltpire. Few reliable sources. There have been plenty of stock sound effects used throughout the years - this one is hardly the Wilhelm scream, or even Castle thunder for that matter. Previous AfD closed as merge, unsure exactly why this was undone. Action Jackson IV (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kizor's rationale in the first AfD. I'm pretty much in agreement with him. JuJube (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Ok, this is basically WP:original research, then again, the subject is not academic material. Somewhat culturally notable, not ephemeral, article is entirely non controversial, content is more than a stub, and we have no trees to save here. Equendil Talk 23:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Goofy. Apparently, this is something that was sometimes heard when Goofy cartoons were made in the 1940s and 50s. Though there's some indication that YAAAhoohoohooey has sometimes been repeated in later Disney cartoons, nothing to indicate that this ever caught on as a catchphrase outside of wonderful world of Disney; or inside it, for that matter. Even Yabba dabba doo is just a redirect to Fred Flintstone. Mandsford (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the previous AFD. The article contains no sources to suggest it has achieved the notability of the Wilhelm. It's definitely notable and worth referencing in the context of the article on the character, and/or an article on stock sound effects, but I don't see independent notability and I don't see anything to suggest the previous AFD decision should be overruled. 23skidoo (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this list is even merged, Wikipedia risks losing precious data about this sound effect. --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Action Jackson IV (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is ever really lost in a merger, unless it's merged to an article that is later deleted. And the article about Goofy is not likely to ever be deleted. Mandsford (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 *'''Merge''' per the previous AFD. The article contains no sources to suggest it has achieved the notability of the Wilhelm. It's definitely notable and worth referencing in the context of the article on the character, and/or an article on stock sound effects, but I don't see independent notability and I don't see anything to suggest the previous AFD decision should be overruled. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] ([[User talk:23skidoo|talk]]) 05:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''. If this list is even merged, Wikipedia risks losing precious data about this sound effect. --[[User:Ryanasaurus007|Ryanasaurus007]] ([[User talk:Ryanasaurus007|talk]]) 13:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
+:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. [[User:Action Jackson IV|Action Jackson IV]] ([[User talk:Action Jackson IV|talk]]) 18:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 *Nothing is ever really lost in a merger, unless it's merged to an article that is later deleted.  And the article about [[Goofy]] is not likely to ever be deleted.  [[User:Mandsford|Mandsford]] ([[User talk:Mandsford|talk]]) 14:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)