Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lion of Oz


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Regardless of the merits of the original closure, the post-relist comments clearly push this into consensus-to-keep territory. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Lion of Oz

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Mostly-unsourced article on a 2000 animated film; I've looked in newspapers and found showtimes but not reviews. I was hoping some would come up in the AfD for the book it's based on, but nada.

Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz appears to be for adaptations of that book specifically, not any of its sequels/spinoffs, so it's not a good redirect target. asilvering (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy,Literature,  and Film. asilvering (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Canada.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  03:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Common Sense Media; RTP; Filmdienst, Cinema.de are reviews/assessment (short, but reviews containing a critical assessment) in reliable sources so that the article can be retained; TV Guide calls it a "charming animated prequel ".- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  07:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC) (Note: added some to the page.)
 * Delete - From the sources listed above, only Common Sense Media qualifies as a review, others are just descriptions of the film. And the Common Sense Media review is so short that I wouldn't say it's "significant coverage" per WP:NFILM. --Mika1h (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Maybe not exactly reviews, you are right, but they do "address the film directly and in detail" (WP:N) (and contain a (minimal) critical assessment, but let's not even mention that) and are independent and reliable; and that's exactly what is needed to meet the general requirements for notability, which subsumes N:FILM. So maybe does not meet N:FILM but does meet GNG. Hope you agree. Best,- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  14:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And the CSM review is not that short, is it? I'll quote it verbatim (prose only) for other users to decide: (and I didn't quote all the small bits).....- My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank)  14:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, CSM and TV Guide are both reliable, independent sources and help this film pass WP:NFILM, but even if the length of one of them is questionable...it is still enough for WP:GNG Donald D23   talk to me  16:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The review notes: "The animated film Lion of Oz follows the Wizard of Oz formula, and young Oz lovers will enjoy the magical characters and familiar elements. The movie's emphasis on friendship, courage, and believing in what's possible are nice and very positive, and the story is sure to please its intended audience. However, adults will find the character of Wimsik overly sweet, and the music is strictly B-list."   The review notes: "In this animated prequel to The Wizard of Oz, based on a book by L. Frank Baum's great grandson, Roger S. Baum, a circus lion and the circus balloonist, Oscar, are blown from Nebraska into Oz. ... The action is punctuated by several nicely melodic and message-laden songs. The story follows in the Oz books tradition of successive episodes introducing new and fantastic characters. Some of these minor characters, particularly Fitzy, the toy soldier prone to malapropisms, and Caroline, the doll with a sharp tongue and a warm heart, are delightful and help keep the video from becoming cloying. Technically this video is beautifully made and it boasts a fine cast of actor voices including Dom DeLuise as Oscar, Jane Horrocks as Wimsik, Jason Priestly as the Lion, and Lynne Redgrave as the Wicked Witch. While the story is more didactic than any of L. Frank Baum's Oz books, it will entertain young viewers."   The review gives two stars. The review notes: "This animated adventure — billed as a prequel to the events of The Wizard of Oz — suffers from an excess of contrivance. Yet the vocal talents on duty are impressive. Jason Priestley voices the heroic circus lion who becomes increasingly cowardly on his travels, while Jane Horrocks plays the little girl who helps him resist the wiles of Lynn Redgrave's Wicked Witch of the East. Tim Curry, Don DeLuise and Bob Goldthwait add to the fun. But don't expect the cartoon equivalent of The Wizard of Oz, this is much flimsier in its construction."   The abstract notes: "Reviews the videotape 'The Lion of Oz.'"   The article notes: "Sony Wonder will showcase its animated musical feature, Lion of Oz and the Badge of Courage, at this year's Licensing 2000 International. The 75-minute program is set to air on the Disney Channel this September to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the original book publication of The Wizard of Oz."  <li> The article notes: " A new animated musical tele-film, "Lion of Oz and the Badge of Courage," which celebrates the 100th anniversary of the original publication of "The Wizard of Oz," will make its international sales debut at the MIPCOM market in Cannes from Oct. 4-9. The special is Sony Wonder's first feature-length original production and is produced with Cine-Group. "Lion of Oz" is described as a prequel to the original work and is based on the book of the same name written by Roger Baum, the grandson of "Wizard of Oz" author L. Frank Baum. It will debut in the United States on the Disney Channel in fall 2000." </li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lion of Oz to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Keep per reviews identified by Mushy Yank and Cunard. Toughpigs (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the many, many sources listed above. Honestly there needs to be some sort of mechanism to stop the amount of timewasting AfDs which have clearly not had good Before. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @BoomboxTestarossa It had an entire AfD preceding it. Books are typically considered to be notable if they have been made into a notable movie. No one managed to turn up evidence of the movie being notable in the AfD for the book, which was then redirected for lack of sources. If you don't think an entire AfD process is enough of a WP:BEFORE, I'm not sure what more you could possibly require. -- asilvering (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So we should redo the book AfD as well? Toughpigs (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, as I do not believe that the keep !votes here have at all shown a WP:GNG pass. The coverage is extremely minimal; Cunard's quotes aren't excerpts so much as the entire mention, for most of them. If this AfD does close as keep, it might be worth revisiting the book one, but to what end I'm not sure, since there aren't any sources on the book. It would probably make more sense to open an RfD instead, to retarget the redirect to this movie. But again, I don't think we have seen evidence that this is a notable movie, and I stand by my nomination. -- asilvering (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment (nom): I couldn't withdraw the nom if I wanted to right now because of Mika1h's !vote, but I do want to reiterate that I currently still stand by my nomination. Cunard's #5 and #6 are so minimal I don't know why they were brought up, and the quote for #3 is actually the entire review; if this really is all the coverage that exists I don't see how we can be calling this a notable film. It certainly doesn't pass WP:NFILM, so the question that remains is whether it passes WP:GNG. The CSM review is currently the best coverage anyone has turned up. I would not call this WP:GNG-passing coverage of a creative work, myself. -- asilvering (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * provides 535 words of coverage about the Lion of Oz. provides 318 words of coverage about the Lion of Oz. These two sources by themselves are sufficient for the Lion of Oz to pass Notability. Cunard (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cunard The number of words is not terribly relevant when it comes to satisfying WP:GNG. It's the depth of coverage that matters. The coverage we have in the best source found yet, Schultz's CSM review, lightly describes the story (about the size of the blurb you'd find on a book jacket or DVD cover), then gives three short critical sentences. It is very difficult to describe this as the directly and in detail required of significant coverage (directly, yes, in detail, no). Moreover, CSM isn't a selective review platform that only looks at the most notable/impactful/whatever films, so the fact that it was reviewed doesn't give us much to work with as an indication of notability either. This is a film that very few people have heard of, for which the best review we have is a parenting website, not a professional film review column. I don't believe we have evidence here that either the letter or the spirit of GNG are met. -- asilvering (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition to the "Is It Any Good?" section, the Common Sense Media article has secondary analysis in the "Parents Need to Know" section: "The only concern for parents here is cartoon scariness, as the villainous Wicked Witch of the East, her flying monkeys, and her partner in crime -- a skull-faced mist creature called Gloom -- threaten Lion and the friends who're trying to help him. However, any child who's comfortable with the level of scariness in the 1939 classic film can handle Lion of Oz." At Village pump (policy)/Archive 186, there was a strong consensus that for books, an author's description of a book's plot is transformative and contributes to establishing notability. As one editor wrote, "It's not for use to insert our value judgments about what reviewers (or RS generally) choose to focus on when discussing a narrative work. The purpose of GNG is to determine how much coverage a given subject has received from RS, as a measure of whether a statistically significant number of readers would benefit from the utility of an independent article on the subject." The same consensus is likely to apply to film reviews, so the "What's the Story?" section counts towards significant coverage. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am honestly somewhat confused by your assertion that those two sentences are in-depth secondary analysis useful for writing an encyclopedia article and indicative of the subject's notability. -- asilvering (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The author of the Common Sense Media review provides secondary analysis in the "Parents Need to Know" section of the review by discussing how the movie does not have sufficient music to make it a musical even though there are several song performances from the characters, that parents need to be concerned about the "cartoon scariness", and that if a child is unperturbed by the scariness in the 1939 movie, they can handle the scariness in this movie. This is not merely restating the plot—it is injecting the author's own opinion into the review. There is more secondary analysis in the "Is It Any Good?" section, where the author says the film "follows the Wizard of Oz formula", youth fans of Oz will like the "the magical characters and familiar elements", and that the focus on friendship and courage is "nice and very positive". The review offers negative commentary by saying the character Wimsik is "overly sweet" and the music is "strictly B-list". This review contains very detailed commentary. When combining all this secondary analysis with the consensus in Village pump (policy)/Archive 186 that allows discussion of plot to contribute to establishing notability, this review easily meets the "significant coverage" requirement of Notability. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I am baffled at the idea that you think someone saying the focus on courage and friendship is "nice and very positive" and the music is "strictly B-list" is very detailed commentary. Simply restating the things you have already said is not going to convince me; I read them the first time and, obviously, disagree. -- asilvering (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe it will help to give a comparison. Here is undisputedly GNG-passing film coverage: . (Found by googling "film criticism journals".) This is very detailed commentary. Does it have to be this detailed to count for GNG? Certainly not. Does it have to be more in-depth than the CSM review - a review which, again, is not by a professional film writer? I believe that it does. -- asilvering (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see enough to support GNG when it's such a clear failure of NFILM. I usually work with WP:NBOOK (which the book absolutely did not pass!) but NFILM also gives us very clear criteria for what is the kind of coverage that makes a film notable. NFILM#1 looks for 2 reviews by national critics: we have 0. (School Library Journal does not count here.) NFILM#2 looks for 2 reviews (by anyone) 5+ years after release: I GUESS we can count the Common Sense Media database entry as one (it is at least written by an independent team, rather than using user reviews; though we have no evidence it was written after 2005), but where is the second one?
 * I agree that the CSM and SLJ sources are the best ones; they are the only really useful ones, I think. But I don't think they are sufficient for GNG, and we definitely don't have NFILM. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: To get back on log, relist note TK Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  15:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Notability (films) says: "The general notability guideline states: 'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.' The link to the main article explains each criterion. A topic might be considered notable even if it only satisfies some of the criteria. Conversely, even if a topic is presumed to satisfy all of the criteria, group consensus may still determine that it does not qualify as a stand-alone article. Additional criteria for the evaluation of films are outlined in the sections below." Lion of Oz meets Notability (films) through having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is no requirement for a film that meets "General principles" to also have to meet "Other evidence of notability". The NFILM#1 and NFILM#2 you refer to fall under Notability (films). Lion of Oz received 535 words of coverage in Common Sense Media (which is a reliable source per Reliable sources/Perennial sources) and 318 words of coverage in School Library Journal. This is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. To assert that Lion of Oz does not meet Notability (films) and Notability for books (a similar consensus is likely to apply for films), "delete" editors must show that the Common Sense Media and School Library Journal articles are either not independent, not reliable, or not significant.  Cunard (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we disagree about the number of sources desired for GNG. Per GNG, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Those two sources are certainly acceptable (if unexciting) in themselves, but they are only two. Two is the absolute smallest number that could be considered "multiple." I generally hope to see 3 to 5 good, meaty sources for GNG. In my mind, the chief virtue of an SNG is that it saves one the work of finding the large number and diversity of sources required for GNG. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining your standard for the general notability guideline why you are supporting deletion even though you consider the Common Sense Media and School Library Journal to be "certainly acceptable (if unexciting) in themselves". Regarding "the large number and diversity of sources required for GNG" and the "hope to see 3 to 5 good, meaty sources for GNG", this is a much higher bar that what the guideline requires. I consider two "meaty" sources to be sufficient to meet the guideline, and this is the standard I've seen in the numerous film AfDs I've participated in and observed. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we can agree to disagree about the number of sources for GNG, and see how other participants in the AfD respond. Your comment did make me realise a clarifying detail: really I look for 3-5 “fine” sources, or fewer “meaty” ones. In this context I think we have two “fine” sources, and a “meaty” source would be something like a Roger Ebert review.  ~ L 🌸  (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition to and,  (a review to which I do not have full text access) could also be a "fine" source. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the School Library Journal and Commonsense Media reviews and book reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * So we have two solid sources so far, however neither are in-depth enough to prove notability. I'd say one more solid source would be enough for the article. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Relisting note closed this as Keep, and  brought it to DRV which hosted a lengthy discussion whose outcome suggested a reclose, so we're here. There is not necessarily a need for further seven days. Encourage any participants and the future closer to read Deletion_review/Log/2024_February_17. Highly suggest this be closed by an admin with a detailed statement.  Star   Mississippi  15:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep I'll preface this by saying that notability is a spectrum - where even someone like Dom DeLuise is pretty clearly level 10 notable on a 10 point scale, this article's in one of those grey zones where there's really not enough good sources, but per Cunard there are enough reviews to source an article. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: More than enough for notability with the sources identified above. Which is more than most pieces of media have here that we've seen. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Covered here, briefly . Oaktree b (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: GNG passing clearly, especially with the sources mentioned. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.