Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney General Entertainment Content


 * 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 The Walt Disney Company. SpinningSpark 20:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Disney General Entertainment Content

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm on the fence with this one. On one hand, it could be refactored as just a list article as many of the items under the "units" section have their own articles and can easily be deemed as notable, but I am not finding many sources for the entity itself, "Disney General Entertainment Content". I am listing this here as it has been repeatedly un-redirected and there appears to be at least a small consensus forming already that this does not have suitable in-depth coverage to pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG. ASUKITE 23:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  ASUKITE  23:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions.  ASUKITE  23:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  ASUKITE  23:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  ASUKITE  23:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. It's a division of Disney, so I don't think WP:ORG is an issue as it's just a part of the bigger company. Considering that major branches of the company with lots of SIGCOV are part of this division (Walt Disney Television, ABC News, FX Networks, and National Geographic), I think it's worth keeping. I added some refs to the article. Granted most of these refs came out within a month of Disney announcing this shift in the company's structure; but this is a major international company so I don't think notability is an issue here.4meter4 (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Literally, I feel like that half of Wikipedia is pretty much Disney related articles at this point. Like every time there is a new division that is under Disney and also bears the Disney name, we have to create an article on it. Why can't we create pages on the more recognizable and the flagships brand of Disney, ex. Walt Disney Television or Pixar, and keep those pages instead of creating like a million pages about every single Disney brand. It just feels really forced and unnecessary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.132.120 (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comment is bonafide WP:IHATEIT. – The Grid  ( talk )  20:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Walt Disney Company and protect As it, just a directory to links to other articles within the same division that's duped by the main page. And more importantly, the corporate template duplicates it.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll agree, that seems like a reasonable idea. ASUKITE  22:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Walt Disney Company as the most sensible decision. This company isn't notable in its own right, there are no references that meet NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:31, 25 October 2021 (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.