- 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. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 02:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Tot Watchers
- Tot Watchers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entirely a plot summary with no sources and external links. Creeperparty568 ~ Cool Guy ( talk) 11:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Any Tom and Jerry cartoon meets WP:GNG. Yes it can be improved but WP:BEFORE should have been applied here. MarnetteD| Talk 05:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Last of the classic T&J shorts. Can be improved and really should be, but I tend to agree with MarnetteD. Crow Caw 23:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Afd is not about sourcing within the article, but about credible notability (which can be ascertained by a primary search). The nomination statement of being "entirely a plot summary with no sources and external links" can work in a prod but perhaps not in an Afd. Clearly a notable subject. Interested editors should source up the article though. Lourdes 00:52, 21 October 2016 (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. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 02:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Tot Watchers
- Tot Watchers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entirely a plot summary with no sources and external links. Creeperparty568 ~ Cool Guy ( talk) 11:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Any Tom and Jerry cartoon meets WP:GNG. Yes it can be improved but WP:BEFORE should have been applied here. MarnetteD| Talk 05:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Last of the classic T&J shorts. Can be improved and really should be, but I tend to agree with MarnetteD. Crow Caw 23:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Afd is not about sourcing within the article, but about credible notability (which can be ascertained by a primary search). The nomination statement of being "entirely a plot summary with no sources and external links" can work in a prod but perhaps not in an Afd. Clearly a notable subject. Interested editors should source up the article though. Lourdes 00:52, 21 October 2016 (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.