Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puny Express


 * 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 List of Woody Woodpecker theatrical cartoons. Clear consensus not to retain, but per Piotr, redirects are cheap. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Puny Express

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is one of a very large number of articles on individual Woody Woodpecker cartoons, almost all of which were created by a user who was indeffed in 2015 for repeated copyright violations and sockpuppetry Contributor copyright investigations/Oanabay04. See also and  for similar deletion discussions on a similar series of articles for Pink Panther cartoon articles. These discussions closed with a consensus to redirect them all to the appropriate list article, and I believe that redirecting all of these Woody Woodpecker cartoon articles to Woody Woodpecker filmography is called for here.

For this particular article, I could not find anything more than run of the mill coverage. The book cited here that is available online only shows very brief coverage of this particular cartoon, just a voice credit and nothing else. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep In my opinion, coverage in THREE books is significant enough coverage to pass notability guidelines. Donald D23   talk to me  20:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article has a less than 1 sentence mention in Who's who in Animated Cartoons, that's it. That hardly counts as sigcov. See here: . Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, THREE books is significant coverage, in my opinion. Donald D23   talk to me  22:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand SIGCOV. It doesn't matter how many sources have passing mentions, we need 2+ non-passing ones. And we don't have this here, the cited books are barely a sentence or half mentions, some of them are just mentions in the list. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete; could not find WP:SIGCOV. There must be substantial reference to the subject to be counted to GNG. It does not matter if there are a million books that mention the topic, if they all just mention the topic once in a very brief sentence. DonaldD23 does not convince me. Second choice would be to redirect to a list article. Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 13:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. As rightly notes, brief mentions in multiple books does not satisfy any applicable notability standard. The two books listed and a few more I found do nothing more than provide one-line listings or credits or a brief sentence fragment.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 22:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Woody Woodpecker theatrical cartoons. Like most WW cartoons, it has no stand-alone notability but redirects are cheap. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:33, 14 November 2021 (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.