Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Awful Spook

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. Daniel (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Awful Spook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

While the series is clearly notable, this particular short does not pass WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep::There's a rule in WP:NFILM's "Other evidence of notability" section saying "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." Because The Awful Spook was release in a short film collection on DVD many decades later, that's probably rereleasing. By making that criterion it should have some notability. FoxLad (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Being made in 1921, it would have been released in theaters as the home video market didn't yet exist. The article could use more references though. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; If the film isn't considered notable, this should revert to the redirect it used to be (Krazy Kat filmography#Bray_Productions), not be deleted. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Film was re-released several times over the years (which satisfies the NFILM section that FoxLad pointed out above) and has also been discussed in books (including the one cited in the article) Donaldd23 (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per FoxLad and Donaldd23. The age of this short is an important consideration, as many works from the era are lost (albeit to my understanding less so in animation than live action); a hundred-year-old film being preserved and re-released is a strong indication of its notability. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2021 (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.