Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riding the Rails


 * 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The result was   withdrawn. flaminglawyer 03:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Riding the Rails

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No refs = no visible notability... flaminglawyer 01:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a link to the official website, where the entire cartoon in question can be watched. I believe all the cartoons could be mentioned in an article named List of Betty Boop episodes, perhaps.  Or were they shown as entire movies on their own?  These things were popular back in the day, but someone would have to look around the official website and elsewhere to see just how successful each movie was, to determine if it gets its own page or not.  She was a significant figure in history, as noted by many historians. Dream Focus (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You say it's a "significant figure in history, as noted by many historians." Could you provide some links to support that? It could save (or kill, if there aren't any) the article. flaminglawyer 01:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Boop#Betty%20as%20sex%20symbol They have a reference to a New York Times article. I was thinking of a program I saw on the History Channel, and places elsewhere where she was mentioned.  Dream Focus (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (no such section...) flaminglawyer 01:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment There are dozens of articles, dedicated to each of her movies. Check her main article for a list of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Boop#Filmography%20(Betty%20Boop%20series) If it is determined they aren't popular enough to stand on their own, then they should be merged into one list.  I see nothing wrong with each film having its own page though, so I vote KEEP Dream Focus (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem... WP:WAX... flaminglawyer 01:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My point was that you'd need to nominate all the other articles as well, for deletion or merger, not just take out one of them. Unless some were more popular than others when they came out of course.  How many people have to see a movie to make it notable enough to stand on its own? Dream Focus (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Um... That's exactly what WP:WAX says... flaminglawyer 02:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! Let's delete them all! MuZemike 03:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Its not the same thing actually.  All are related.  Wikipedia delete policy allows for nominating a lot of related things at once, such as songs from the same album which each have their own page, etc.  Anyway, not relevant, since this one has an Oscar nomination, and the right to stand on its own.  I believe there is a rule about being nominated for a major award somewhere. Dream Focus (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep – It's an Oscar-nominated film . Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Paul. Even anything recent that has been nominated for an Oscar is safe to say that it's notable. Same applies to films waaaay back then. MuZemike 03:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, re-opening. I can't see where anyone is getting the Oscar nomination from, I can't find a mention of it on the article or the linked reference. flaminglawyer 03:38, 25 January 2009 (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.