Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animated Hero Classics


 * 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. Although the discussion below is not favourable, the author has made a genuine and thorough attempt to source the articles, and to assert the notability of the subjects, toward the end of this discussion. I conclude that the reasons for nomination are now no longer relevant, and I thank JonHarder for helping the author during the debate. - Richardcavell 22:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Animated Hero Classics


Bump from speedy. Non-notable animated series. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 07:38Z 
 * Delete all - notability has not been established for this animated series. There is evidence of conflict of interest with the Nest Famly — and possibly  — adding links to the for-sale parts of the Nest Family website. The article seems to have become more a vehicle for advertising than an informative article. These series can simply be mentioned in the Richard Rich (director) article, without the long lists of individual episodes. ✤ JonHarder talk 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all - articles don't establish notability, COI issues. Mentioning them at Richard Rich (director) is sufficient. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Adjust if necessary but to not delete - These series have been available for years and are very popular in the home educator and public school and library envirnment.  Many teachers, parents, children and others doing research on the male and female heroes for acamedic purposes might want to know that there are video portrayals of those characters.  Since many other children's  movie series IMDB listings are included in Wikipedia it seemed appropriate to add those links here.  The "long list" of titles has been here for some time, a couple folks (myself included) just recently added the links to IMDB.  If ther are specific comments or links that you object to which you belive to be "vanity" or "adverstising" let's delete those - - but let's not remove the entire selection and therefore the ability for kids, teachers and parents that are researching these topics, such as Harriett Tubnman, Geoerge Washingotn, Moses or John the Baptist from finding IMDB references to additional resources.


 * Also, if you think this one is "advertising" then take a look at the Veggie Tales wikipedia citation for comparision. That citation describes nearly every episode indeetail, the actors etc.  These sites just link to the IMDB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  HistoryHero (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - It would be helpful for you and others interested in preserving these articles to look at the proposed notability of films guideline and provide independent, reliable sources that establish notability. I think you should be able to come up with something. Perhaps Christianity Today or another prominent publication has reviewed them? When those sources are provided, I will consider switching my opinion to keep. I don't have a particular objection the the imdb links, but would like to see the article dominated by descriptive prose. As it stands, it is somewhat of a link repository (see WP:NOT). ✤ JonHarder talk 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you - As you suggest,I will look into the guidelines and revisit the content. But off the cuff, just so you know, these films are used regulalry for research, homework, lesson plans, etc. by teachers and students. The series and individual titles have received mutiple awards including the family approved seal from the Dove Foundation, The Parent's Choice Foundation award and the National Educational Media Association award, the "Award of Excellence" from the Film Advisory Board, the Director's Choice Award from Early Childhood News, they are endorsed by KIDS FIRST!, and received the highest rating from Practical Homeschooling. These educational movies are used in over 60,000+ public schools & libraries, 100,000+ churches of all Christian denominiations, by counteless home educators, and are streamed into public schools by Discovery Education's United Media Streaming group.  They are a great tool for kids researching the heroes of history (Biblical and secular) covered by the series. As you suggest, I will look at the [WP:NF|proposed notability of films guideline]]to see how best to add more content and make it clear that these series and the individual movies are a serious research and teaching tool.  Thank you again for the suggestion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HistoryHero (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 10:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Is notability now established? - As requested, I have added more information and background content about the series, its genesis, purpose and the reviews and awards it has garnered. Thank you again for your suggestions.HistoryHero 14:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The main problem now, as I see it, is that the information in the article needs to be sourced... where was this information found (what books, magazine/newspaper articles, reviews, etc...) If that can be added to the articles, per Attribution, the odds of these articles being kept shoot up. -- saberwyn 23:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Things actually have taken a step backwards. On at least three of the articles, there are copyright problems. The new text that was lifted directly from commercial promotional material. The copied parts need to come out immediately or this becomes a speedy delete . Once that is corrected, the sources need to be provided, as stated above. ✤ JonHarder talk 01:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification re attribution The story outlines were taken directly from the video sleeves. Looking at the attribution rules and other examples on Wikipedia, it seems that if I add a foootnote to the Story/Plot Outline section which attributes the source of the outline to the video sleeve and the video distributor all should be okay.  Correct? HistoryHero 02:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically the material needs to be rewritten in your own words. Borrowing complete sentences or rearranging borrowed phrases without permission is considered a copyright violation. Right now it is important to list the independent sources for the parts that assert notability; expanding the text in your own words can come after this AfD is settled in favor of the articles. When the references are added, I will consider changing my opinion to keep. ✤ JonHarder talk 16:00, 25 February 2007 (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.