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 merge/redirect to Sony Pictures Imageworks. I'll redirect, editors are free to merge verifiable material. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early Bloomer[edit]

Early Bloomer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

not notable at all Alan - talk 21:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect Weak Keep as second ever CGI animated short ever released by Sony Imageworks. I gave the article some cleanup and sourcing. It did get some buzz back in 2003... more than one might expect for a 3 minute short. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael, could you please check the 2004 Post source you added? "Early Bloomer' Makes a Splash in Theaters!" appears to be a 2003 Sony press release rather than a valid newspaper source. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yikes. I see that Sony indeed issued a press release by that name. Possibly The Post reprinted it as "news" without checking it for facts or accuracy, or they simply borrowed the title itself as catchy. As it is in doubt, and to avoid confusions, I will remove that particular source from the article . Thanks for the good looking out. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. Thanks for checking. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And right back at'cha with my thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Sony Pictures Imageworks. Non-remarkable film except for the Sony connection. (Pixar had been creating full-length CGI features for a decade). The info is fine but probably can't advance beyond the couple of sentences, while the Imageworks article would benefit from the addition. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In agreement with CactusWriter I have struck my "keep" and do feel that a merge and redirect to Sony Pictures Imageworks for this stub will better serve. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:19, 19 March 2010 (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.