Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hobo Gadget Band


 * 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. Safiel (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Hobo Gadget Band

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability. Only source proves existence and minor change within the work. PROD contested by creator. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for similar resons:


 * Keep all. Bundling is awkward here, because there's no reason to expect equal treatment in reliable sources for all 1930s cartoons. Accordingly, I'm going to address only the primary article nominated. Hobo Gadget Band is actually well-documented in reliable sources. Here is a paragraph in a Rutgers University Press book describing the influence of Disney's cartoons on Hobo. This paper in the journal American Music cites Hobo as an example of the depiction of rural poverty in cartoons. Other sources, although by themselves more trivial mentions, provide us with additional details; a 1948 issue of Motion Picture Herald informs us of the existence of a 1948 re-issue of the cartoon, for example. I haven't dug into the 1930s sources to look for contemporary reviews, although I suspect they also exist--this was released by Vitaphone and would have been primarily seen in theaters along with a feature film, and was likely reviewed accordingly. As with much of our coverage of film before around the 1940s, these articles need a lot of work. Deletion is not the solution. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The cartoons are all Merrie Melodies from the same era, the articles were created by the same user at about the same time, and they're about equal in terms of current content. I'm not opposed to unbundling if they have unequal claims to notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Dog Gone Modern has coverage that is closer to trivial, but that I'd consider to still meet the inclusion bar. This book explicitly identified it as Chuck Jones's second cartoon and discusses the influences on its development. Several sources, including this and this, cite it as part of the "house of tomorrow" trope in science fiction. I believe that it received at least a capsule review in the 1939 Motion Picture Herald, although I don't have confirmation of that immediately at hand. I also believe there's some coverage of it in Leonard Maltin's Of Mice and Magic, although I likewise don't have a copy of that text nearby.
 * I'd really rather not try to wade through the false positives for Bars and Stripes Forever and Snowman's Land at the moment. I'm fairly certain that all the Vitaphone-era theatrical-release Merrie Melodies received reviews in film periodicals, such as Motion Picture Herald. The late 1930s issues of those periodicals are not all easily searchable online at the current time (and I'm having some problems with the searchable OCR versions of some of the ones that are available), which makes checking for the appropriate contemporary references challenging. The worst that could happen with these two titles would be a redirect to Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1929–39). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Based on Northamerica1000's searches, there are available sources for at least some of these films. The problem is that the current version of the articles fails to mention any of them. They will need extensive rewriting and expansion if kept. Dimadick (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

So you are saying to delete these when there are tons of LT and MM articles without any sources at all, and all they get is a stub. We should mark these as stubs, not delete them. SquishyZ1 (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:Other stuff. If you want to link the articles you're talking about, I'll be happy to consider AfDing them pending the outcome here. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I also deleted the plot from Hobo Gadget Band because somehow, it was copied from iMDB. So I had to summarize it in a sentence. Snowman's Land is a lost cartoon and by finding out more about it, we can get more info on the cartoon itself. Bars and Stripes Forever already has two video sources that I put to explain where I came to conclusion about the opening title card. SquishyZ1 (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep all, there's no point in deleting these, especially if they need more work. We can always expand on them during the time, no need to delete. 209.66.173.24 (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep all per Squeamish Ossifrage's research. Seem to all meet the WP:GNG. I agree that the bundling is a bit awkward. Might have been worth nominating one as a test case.  A  Train ''talk 17:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Can I remove the notices for the deletion policy since these haven't been deleted in months? SquishyZ1 (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply The answer is no, as you are the article creator of at least one of these articles and therefore an interested party. But it doesn't matter as I am closing this as keep. Safiel (talk) 02:56, 31 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.