Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugs & Daffy: The Wartime Cartoons


 * 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   no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Bugs & Daffy: The Wartime Cartoons

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article's subject doesn't seem noteworthy enough to merit an entire article. Paper Luigi T • C 08:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not part of Wikipedia's mission to provide a detailed listing of every DVD ever released, and I see no evidence that this DVD is notable. If there were any reliable sources, it could be mentioned in another article, e.g. if there's a table of DVDs on the Bugs Bunny page. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Apparently an obvious "delete", but looking in depht it received enough coverage in RS to be considered notable. See reviews on The Lewiston Journal, The Inquirer , Deseret News , Herald-Journal , ToonZone , The Miami Herald , The Vindicator , Usa Today , and to a less extent Los Angeles Times , Fresno Bee , Times Daily , Dallas Morning News . Also multiple book sources: Cavarrone (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 are all identical (though the Inquirer source seems more complete than the others). Sources 6, 8, 9, 10, and 12 all are pay-per-view, and those aren't advised unless a free version can be found (source 8 doesn't even mention Bugs & Daffy in the summary given, which means it definitely will need a free alternative). Paper Luigi  T • C 11:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Haven't noticed some sources are basically the same however this does not mean they does not count as a (single) valid reliable source. Other sources are also completely valid, verifiability in WP means that other people should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source, without any reference about ease of access to sources, that could be online or offline, with or without payment.
 * Read WP:V Cavarrone (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair, but how would the average editor be able to cite those sources without being able to view them (at least, in their entirety)? Paper Luigi  T • C 12:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These are different issues, a non-free access to a reliable source does not implies anything in relation to the evaluation of the notability of a topic. Despite having free online sources is obviously preferred, there are topics that are even wholly covered by offline sources... this does not mean they are unnotable. Notability does not require sources are free and online, just that they exist. Quoting literally WP:NOTABILITY: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Cavarrone (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I realize that, and those could be gladly included in the article, free or not, if we had some way of reading them in the first place. Paper Luigi  T • C 13:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:28, 13 July 2012 (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.