Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wubbzy's Big Movie!


 * 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) TheChronium  17:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Wubbzy's Big Movie!

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wow! Wow! Wow! There's no! no! no! WP:SIGCOV of these two topics. Even sources specializing in animation give you scrap to nothing. The best you'll get for these is a passing mention on AWN.com, self-published blogs, and a review from the Dove foundation (every crappy low-budget kids film gets a positive review from them, even Norm of the North, plus any evangelist source will be unreliable). Wubbzy's Big Movie? More like Wubbzy's No-Source Movie. In the articles' defense, the films are of a notable series, and one of them stars Beyonce, but WP:Notability is not inherited. They instantly fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, plus also violate WP:ORG in assuming Wubb Idol is a sequel to Big Movie!. Redirect to the series at best, but at worst, Delete! Delete! Delete! 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! Could be better summarized in the show article than here; the article is a grammatical mess, but this project no doubt does exist.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Change vote! to Redirect to List of Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! episodes Described short and sweet there.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, while the article needs major work, I did find a review at Dove (which is recognized as a reliable source) here:[]. If another can be found, it would definitely pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on what we have now, I'll say merge both. The Dove review is just a single paragraph under the official promotional blurb. It's something, but it is nothing like a full review. No other references have been offered yet and the Google links above don't look promising on a quick inspection. Even if these "movies" got released on DVD, I feel that we should treat them as extended episodes of the TV show unless there is proof that they are more than that. After all, the normal episodes got released on DVD too. If better references can be found then that could swing it towards a keep. If the DVDs made a significant showing on the sales charts then that would help. If the media took a significant interest in Beyoncé's involvement (which you would think that they would) then that would help. Some more in-depth reviews would help. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Big Movie!, from what I understand, is probably not even a movie. From what I understand, it's a one-hour special that is basically a episodic set of plots with a "main" storyline going along side them throughout. That one basically is an extended episode. Also, Wubb Idol was aired as part of a set of five continuous episodes, with Wubb Idol being the last of them. They definitely are extended episodes. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment despite the comments in the nomination The Dove Foundation is a reliable source for non controversial subjects such as film reviews and is a rotten tomatoes critic. Ive seen them give very negative reviews with no mention of religion and to suggest that an evangelical source is unreliable per se is a biased and prejudiced opinion that is not worthy of Wikipedia in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do admit to being biased in my Dove comment. It's just that, from what I've heard, evangelical sources in general have a tendency to cover "the truth" according to religion rather than what is actually reality. I will say, however, that I would allow considered-unreliable source for media reviews as long as its bias making its other coverage unreliable don't affect the reliability of "reviews" (though honestly subjective pieces are biased in the first place so I don't know how opinions of things could be unreliable). I would definitely allow film and music reviews from otherwise found-to-be unreliable tabloids, because they're considered unreliable only for real-life coverage that doesn't analyze or have a viewpoint on fiction i.e. The New York Post, The Daily Mail, the Daily Star, etc. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep given this critical review of Wubbzy's Big Movie! in The Globe and Mail, a reliable newspaper. That, plus the Dove review, should be helpful for writing an encyclopedic section on the film's reception. There is coverage of Beyoncé's role in Wubb Idol, including in USA Today ("Beyonce takes a shine to Nick's 'Wubbzy!'") and The Washington Times ("A 'Wow!' for Beyonce"). DanCherek (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't doubt the Globe and Mail review. However, the Washington Times and USA Today examples are only WP:ONEVENT upon-release news announcements that isn't real coverage and could be considered PR. Any popular celebrity will be announced guest starring in a film or episode even if said film or episode isn't very notable; the USA Today and WashTime sources are examples of this, as they are brief pieces focusing on Beyonce's involvement and nothing else, adding nothing significant to the topic's notability. 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per DanCherek, though I confess to being amused by the nomination statement. Both reviews are quite short, so there's an argument to be made about the degree to which they're SIGCOV. You can hold around a hundred words as a reasonable minimum for what constitutes SIGCOV, though, and the Globe & Mail review passes it, while the Dove one is close. (Considering the OP statement about Dove being a generous reviewer, is that overgenerosity covered in any RSes itself to attribute to in the article?) Vaticidalprophet 16:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To answer the question about the overgenerosity, No, it's just something I've noticed in my time learning about terrible animated family films barely anyone knows about. I've seen some bad movies Saberspark and Cinema Snob review on Youtube that get positive Dove reviews. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow! Wow! Weak keep Although I wasn't able to find any sources myself, I did have a look at u|DanCherek's Globe & Mail review-- we're walking a very fine line here, but I think that the review is enough to keep this article. Just barely, but it's still a valid source. 🐍Helen🐍  20:38, 31 May 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.