Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Chocolate Soldiers

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator(non-admin-closure). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Chocolate Soldiers

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

Non-notable short film, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Joseph2302 (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far I'm leaning towards a merge and redirect to Hollywood Party (1934 film) per this source, which says that the short was part of this film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This book says something similar, at least in the brief snapshot I saw. ("Made for the 1934 MGM feature Hollywood Party") Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding where there is some discussion of the short, but it's all hidden away in books that don't allow for a very good look at the work in question. ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, if there's enough consensus. I was originally going to say that this should redirect to the main article for the film until I chanced upon some scholarly sources that discussed this work in some depth, notably the Kaufman article in Film History. It's enough to where I'd say that this could probably merit its own article independent of the main film. We could probably merge the production section into the main article for the film, I suppose, and I don't oppose this, although I am worried that this could cause WP:UNDUE weight because of the length of this section. However I will say that the overall article for Hollywood Party needs quite a bit of work and that if there are sources out there like the Kaufman article, odds are that the undue length could be easily rectified. Apparently this was a bomb of epic proportions, so it'd be interesting to expand. I'll try to do this myself if I can. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever way this goes, this does need to be moved to The Hot Chocolate Soldiers, since the full, formal title includes the word "The". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and move it to The Hot Choc-late Soldiers since the full title does contain "the" but it also hyphenates the title. I'm also uploading the title card, which could probably be used in the main article for the film if the consensus is to merge. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My basic reason for keeping this separate as opposed to just proposing a merge is that the Kaufman article pretty much focused on this short specifically. It did mention it in relation to the film, but the emphasis on the film was very minimal. I am going to try to flesh out the article for the overall film and merge some information into the main article, but this is going to have to wait a few weeks for classes to finish. I'm finding quite a bit of coverage for the film, so I expect that the overall information on the film production could be fairly lengthy- which would make it better for this short to have its own page. I think that notability is established for it independently of the film for the most part, but again- I will understand if the consensus is to merge. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage for this specific short is pretty well hidden, I have to say. I can see where the non-notable concerns come from. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the short's inclusion became Micky's first actual appearance in a feature film.... a notable "first" indeed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the film may be short, but it is notable by itself as shown by authoritative coverage and also its content.--Rpclod (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the outstanding fix: More wonderful work by Tokyogirl79. This now looks like a slam-dunk keep, although the critics are a little tangential as they sit currently. (Some of the histories will be great additions for people who work in those fields. My only owned reference book is History of Narrative Film, which ignores animation, and my library is very weak on A/V.) Lovely stuff. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing Nice work @Tokyogirl79: on improving the article, I genuinely looked for sources and couldn't find any. Withdrawing/snow keep. FWIW, I genuinely though this wasn't notable enough, and am glad it's been improved- it's been a positive outcome to the deletion discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2015 (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.