User:Balloonman/CSD Survey/4.3

Original Article
Title: Disney Secrets Text: This article is about secret sublimal messages in Walt Disney's Cartoons. In many of Disney's Cartons hidden messages can be found which are explicit and rude. Here are some of those: SEX or SFX in the Lion King Rafiki chanting a naughty phrase Phallic in the Little Mermaid Preist having erection in the Little Mermaid Naked Woman in the Rescuers Jessica Rabbit pantless Donald Duck being racist Snow White = cocaine and many more. useful video:Video with above indications and scenes

Nomination Criteria
A3

No content. Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images. However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion. Similarly, this criterion doesn't cover a page with an infobox with non-trivial information.

Survey Comments

 * Not sure what I'd do with that, honestly. Possibly a G10. Claims intent on part of Disney,"hidden messages", as opposed to inadvertent.
 * Seems to have a basis in reality, and doesn't really fit any criteria.
 * A3 is wrong. Probably PROD as unverified nonsense. (Not G1 nonsense)
 * I've heard people talk about this. Might be notable.
 * A7 - it's just advertising the YouTube vid (could even argue G11)
 * PROD and inform user that if it's de-prodded and not brought up to standards it will go to AFD.
 * This is nthing more than a description of a YouTube video. If any of it's truly notable, it could be placed in the articles for the relevant subject.
 * I'm sure there is some article about this, as it is a famous enough thingy. Merge and speedy redirect

Balloonman's analysis
A3 is clearly not correct as there is plenty of content to the article.

This might be deletable as promotional as it is an attempt to attract attention to the associated youtube video.

It would probably be best to find an existing article and redirect this there. These incidents are well enough documented that I'm certain that they are mentioned/discussed elsewhere. If not, then the article needs to be cleaned up.