Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DisneyChannel.com


 * 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   redirect to Disney Channel. No one favored retaining this article, or even merging its content. There is a split as to whether the article should be deleted or redirected, but policy favors redirecting so I have given greater weight to this argument. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  00:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

DisneyChannel.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article is a mess. Does not assert notability aside from that inherited by its main article. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP: NOTABILITY for web content. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How so? There is no verifiable sources claiming this notability. ViperSnake151   Talk  21:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am changing my vote to Delete, as WP: WEB states that there is no inherent notability. While WDW has notability, there are no verifiable sources, and it should be deleted. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Should've been deleted long ago, it's just a long WP:ADVERT in article form and cruft that the network's article already talks about much better.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  02:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Either redirect to Disney.com or delete. This article is barely sourced at all and does not assert notability for this web site. The fact that a business is very notable does not necessarily imply that we need to have a separate article for that business's web site. In some cases it's appropriate, but in this case I don't see a great need. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. No opinion on keeping or deleting the content currently on the page, but this should be a blue link: either it should stay an article, or we should redirect it somewhere.  I'd prefer redirecting to Disney Channel, but I wouldn't complain if we took Metropolitan's suggestion.  Nyttend backup (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Disney Channel. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.