Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Fine Art


 * 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Disney Fine Art

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Let's sort this out once and for all, this article has repeatedly had attempts to speedy delete it and repeatedly added (and re-added) notability template. From what I can see it is certainly bordering on advertising with no claims to notability that I can see (it tries to suggest notability by claiming association with Salvador Dali and an award-nominated film). I can only see commercial and public relations links online about this product. Fails WP:GNG, time for the article to go. Sionk (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability not established by the sources given, Collectors Editions may be barely notable but doens't seem to have warranted an article itself. Artw (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No prejudice. The article is a mess. I can't tell if it's about fine art by disney artists or about the company called Disney Fine Art. Fine art by artists employed by Disney could probably carry an article but the company the article is about (apparently) is not notable enough by itself in terms of secondary coverage to warrant it's own separate article. In the case of the former (fine art by Disney artists) might be better as a category of individual pieces. --Savonneux (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - A bit hard to guess what this is about. It seems to be about an art collection or a company owning one, which doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG and the sources that aren't dead are primary. Could be perhaps merged into some Disney-related article, but I can't think of any that would be relevant enough. Daß Wölf (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2015 (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.