- 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. Tone 09:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Santa and the Three Bears
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Santa and the Three Bears ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I could hesitate to nominate it, was it for plot details, but since there's not even such thing, I think it should be deleted. Also, no references. NickBlamp ( talk) 17:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I think this sort of cite is what the current article is based on. Decent for establishing facts, but rubbish for establishing notability.
- Crump, William D. (2013). The Christmas Encyclopedia, 3d ed. McFarland. ISBN 9780786468270. Retrieved 20 September 2019.
- I'm not sure there are better sources out there. Rockphed ( talk) 19:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:NFP - Epinoia ( talk) 04:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - a reviews of newspapers.com shows this film was widely shown in theaters across the country in 1970 - 1972. It was then shown widely across the United States on television in the 1980s. There are two significant sources about the film, [1] and the aforementioned book by Crump. A review is also found in "Video Movie Guide 1996" by Mick Martin, published by Ballantine Books. Another review is found in Cinefantastique, volume 15, 1985. Given the widespread, nearly ubiquitous showing of this film it is likely that a broad audience will seek encyclopedic information about this topic. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per 78.26. I would further add that I disagree with Rockphed's dismissal of The Christmas Encyclopedia. McFarland & Company is a publishing house that specializes in academic and reference works. The content in specialized encyclopedias, including The Christmas Encyclopedia, is especially significant because wikipedia is an encyclopedia that covers all content found in other encyclopedias. If a work is the main subject of an entry in a published encyclopedia it's always notable. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as has coverage in reliable book sources as above and as it was widely released there should be reviews in newspapers offline if not online as it is a pre-internet subject, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:22, 29 September 2019 (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.
- 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. Tone 09:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Santa and the Three Bears
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Santa and the Three Bears ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I could hesitate to nominate it, was it for plot details, but since there's not even such thing, I think it should be deleted. Also, no references. NickBlamp ( talk) 17:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I think this sort of cite is what the current article is based on. Decent for establishing facts, but rubbish for establishing notability.
- Crump, William D. (2013). The Christmas Encyclopedia, 3d ed. McFarland. ISBN 9780786468270. Retrieved 20 September 2019.
- I'm not sure there are better sources out there. Rockphed ( talk) 19:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:NFP - Epinoia ( talk) 04:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - a reviews of newspapers.com shows this film was widely shown in theaters across the country in 1970 - 1972. It was then shown widely across the United States on television in the 1980s. There are two significant sources about the film, [1] and the aforementioned book by Crump. A review is also found in "Video Movie Guide 1996" by Mick Martin, published by Ballantine Books. Another review is found in Cinefantastique, volume 15, 1985. Given the widespread, nearly ubiquitous showing of this film it is likely that a broad audience will seek encyclopedic information about this topic. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per 78.26. I would further add that I disagree with Rockphed's dismissal of The Christmas Encyclopedia. McFarland & Company is a publishing house that specializes in academic and reference works. The content in specialized encyclopedias, including The Christmas Encyclopedia, is especially significant because wikipedia is an encyclopedia that covers all content found in other encyclopedias. If a work is the main subject of an entry in a published encyclopedia it's always notable. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as has coverage in reliable book sources as above and as it was widely released there should be reviews in newspapers offline if not online as it is a pre-internet subject, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:22, 29 September 2019 (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.