Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry, Jerry, Quite Contrary


 * 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   redirect to Tom and Jerry: The Chuck Jones Collection. Maybe there is some way to save the article using sources we don't have. Not much as it stands. Shii (tock) 16:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Jerry, Jerry, Quite Contrary

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominating for deletion as non-notable. The article is unsourced and I couldn't find any independent reliable sources after a google search. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 05:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  05:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing here suggests that this cartoon is notable under WP:NFILM; this article consists mostly of a plot description. As a second choice, redirect to Tom and Jerry: The Chuck Jones Collection, where this and other Tom & Jerry cartoons from the same era are listed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (drawl)  @ 21:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 05:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  01:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to support notability. Only refs are to database entries.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Vague hint of Keep. I found something in the NY Times.  Normally, I consider the NYT a pretty rock-solid reliable source, but this is rather minimal.  I wouldn't consider this enough to justify keeping by itself, but it's a start.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2015 (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.