Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musical Moments from Chopin


 * 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Musical Moments from Chopin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable video clip SageGreenRider (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * delete- doesn't meet WP:NFF or WP:GNG, could be merged into any of several articles. Deunanknute (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This film received an Academy Award nomination for Best Animated Short. At minimum, this article should be given a reprieve so that additional sources can be sought out. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 11:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 11:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 11:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: It's absurd that an academy-award-nominated film, even an animated short, could be considered for deletion. What we need to do, instead, is flesh out this and related topics. I plan to add the Musical Miniatures article soon. — Kaz (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Apology The sourcing is much better now. When I first saw it it had only a dead link to a former copyright-violating youtube upload and one to a non-reliable source (user-generated content at imdb) so I incorrectly assumed the topic non-notable. I reverse my position. SageGreenRider (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Kaz for working on the article and its sourcing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * People need to move to improve first, instead of being so quick to remove. This is true of deleting articles, deleting unsourced details, et cetera. It's far better to add some kind of citation-needed, than to remove things.The "remove first, ask questions later" mentality originally came from dishonest editors wanting to censor information they didn't like, by wikilawyering. But now it's infected non-controversial articles and claims, where it has never belonged. — Kaz (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but technically I didn't remove it. I (mistakenly it turns out) tagged it for a removal discussion.SageGreenRider (talk) 12:42, 6 February 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.