Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey Mouse in Vietnam

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Mouse in Vietnam

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable short. Not an official Disney cartoon JDDJS (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I originally voted merge, but I’m changing my vote to a keep due to the extensive coverage and amble number of sources found by Arxiloxos. A keep outcome is completely justified. Also, here is a more recent source from the Huffington Post [1], which should demonstrate that the film has received coverage from a wide frame of time. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Time and paywalls have eroded access to the sources of the day, but searches show (in snippets, unfortunately) that this legendary bit of agitprop was covered at the time it was made [2][3][4] (and it won at least one award [5]); was remembered later on [6][7]; and received substantial international coverage when it was rediscovered.[8][9][10][11][12][13]. The writeups are mostly brief because—well, because it's a one-minute short about Mickey going to 'Nam and quickly getting his head blown off—but it's a significant artifact of the antiwar movement, and a memorable work by the unquestionably notable Milton Glaser as well as by the possibly notable W. Lee Savage (he doesn't have an article but there's coverage [14] and his work has been collected by the Smithsonian [15]). While I appreciate the merge suggestion, I think there's enough here to support a separate entry. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I completely missed those. I've changed my vote to a keep accordingly, as this article has more than enough coverage to justify a keep. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage meeting inclusion criteria. And JDDJS... not being an official Disney film is not one of our deletion rationales. There is no shame in a withdrawal. Cheers, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.