Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbit Fire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)
Tagged on Apr 30 but never listed on VfD. No vote.--Nabla 18:00, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
As the Thry guy noted on the discussion page this page should simply be listed on the Elmer Fudd page. It is not significant enough to stand on its own. freestylefrappe 03:13, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
- I am the "Thry guy" in question, and my 9th Jan comment
still stands - merge with Elmer Fudd. Thryduulf 22:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)is now out-of-date. Keep. Thryduulf 4 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Elmer Fudd (although I was mildly tempted to say dewete).-- BD2412 talk 20:07, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)- Mewge with Elmaw Fudd. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Mewge and Wediwect with Elmew FuddWats. "Keep" doesn't wowk too wew in Elmaw Fudd-speak. --Carnildo 22:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)- Strong Keep. The film is a notable Bugs Bunny cartoon, guest-starring Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd (which is, first of all, why a merge to Elmer Fudd would not be correct). This is the first of the "Duck Season! Rabbit Season!" films, and is generally considered one of the best Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies shorts ever made. I have expanded the article as such, and added a link to the film's imdb page. This cartoon short is very much notable enough for its own article; especially if "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" has its own as well.--FuriousFreddy 19:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and dont merge while i realize it might seem weird that i created the vfd page yet im advocating keeping it, im changing my vote because of the expansion by FuriousFreddy. freestylefrappe 23:30, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Elmer Fudd. JamesBurns 03:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment--Everyone saying "merge with Elmer Fudd"--it's not an Elmer Fudd cartoon, he's a supporting character. If anything, you would merge with Bugs Bunny. But is this short not notable enough for its own article? I know the original stub didn't establish notability, I expanded the article so that it now does.
- Maybe if the "reaction" section were expanded more. --Carnildo 05:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It's expanded more. I'd be hard-pressed for someone to tell me why this short isn't notable. --FuriousFreddy 06:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe if the "reaction" section were expanded more. --Carnildo 05:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and dont merge There are more than a dozen other Warner Brothers cartoon shorts that also have their own Wikipedia articles, most of which aren't even as historically significant as this one, and on top of that this article is the best researched and written one about a WB short that I've seen. I wish someone would give the Duck Amuck article this kind of rewrite. One idea I could support is expanding this further into an article about all three short films in the "Hunting Trilogy," as opposed to just this one, but that isn't absolutely necessary. I am actually hoping to see articles (or additional information) about the other two at some point though, if not here then on their own pages, especially Duck, Rabbit, Duck! since it's my favorite of three.--Zequist 4 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.