Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom and Jerry and the Wizard 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry and the Wizard of Oz

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Just 4 Google hits, counting WP. WP:CRYSTAL, utterly non-notable.  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 21:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this page should be deleted just about yet. Besides, four Google hits is just only the beginning. -- SonyWonderFan (talk) 21:25, May 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't write articles about future events, however I don't see any reason this one should be deleted. Clearly the movie exists/will exist and is notable enough being the production of a major studio. Why waste time talking about it? Borock (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete As we don't have a crystal ball and can't tell if this direct-to-video production will ever be notable. As to Borock, the question isn't why should it be deleted as much as what criteria does it pass in order to be included?.  The answer is none.  That something exists is not a valid reason to have an article by itself.  Dennis Brown (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is its page at Warner Brothers, a major studio. Tom and Jerry are also major characters. Although it is not something I am interested in (mainly 'cause our kids are grown up and we don't have grandkids yet) I honestly don't see how it could not be notable. Also the fact that they are taking orders for it shows that a crystal ball is not really required.Borock (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to read WP:RS which describes what 'reliable sources' means. The studio is not a reliable source, they are a primary source.  That is fine as a cite for some stuff, but it doesn't establish notability.  Of course the studio is talking about the DVD.  What makes it notable is if someone ELSE that isn't making money off it is talking about it.  IE: The New York Times, other papers, other websites that are not user generated (IMDB doesn't count as 'reliable' for notability, for example).  We know it EXISTS.  The problem is that if no newspaper, magazine, mainstream website, etc is talking about it, then that means no one cares, which means it isn't notable.  Dennis Brown (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. It doesn't even exist yet.  We have announcements from WB that it will be released in August, but August isn't here yet. -- Whpq (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2011 (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.