Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Movie Deaths


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  15:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Disney Movie Deaths

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm not convinced that this list is very encyclopaedic; it is unsourced (presumably the sources are the films themselves) and could arguably constitute original research for that reason, but moreover a list of deaths in Disney films sounds like an indiscriminate collection of information not worthy of its own article. Mithent 00:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per concerns of nominator.  Cool Blue  talk to me 00:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I agree that a list of Disney deaths is unencyclopaedic, and could be construed as original research. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am biased in that I just like lists, but I think that this article could be expanded.  Perhaps it can be considered noteworthy in that Disney has a tendency to kill at least one character in almost every one of their movies in spite of their kid-friendly image .  Useight 01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly a valid reason for a "keep".  Cool Blue  talk to me 01:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a noteworthy cause either. Garfield kills spiders all the time, despite that being a supposedly-kid-friendly strip; does that mean that every Garfield spider gag's notable? Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True. After further consideration, I am changing my vote to Delete.  Useight 04:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, we don't do cataloging for its own sake, only when there's some value in it. If there's something to be said about killing off a character in every movie, say that in the main article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 02:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as intrinsically indiscriminate. There used to be an article (IIRC) on something like "Disney absent parent syndrome", which at least has been noted by reviewers and even scholars as a notable aspect of the studio's oeuvre. It's barely possible that Bambi's dad, et al., have inspired similar scholarship, but I've never really come across it. --Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as Disneycruft. Also as per nom.  Lankiveil 04:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, a reasonable list about limited subject area. --Movedgood 10:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite all the valid reasons above, you have decided to give a "keep" without a valid reason. Could you please explain your reasoning. WP:JUSTAVOTE is hardly a reason for any opinion. Answered.  Cool Blue  talk to me 11:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Concur with above deletion reasoning. Doesn't appear to be particularly useful.  Jody B   talk 12:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: I see no enyclopædic merit in keeping this article; it is unreferenced, poorly written and I have a feeling that it could never be exhaustive or well-referenced. Max Naylor 14:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is not only unencylopedic, but also non-notable. --Jhskulk 19:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral: I think if this list was cleaned up it could be useful, but in it's current state is not needed. -- bdud e  Talk  00:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. 2 quick Ghits indicate that the topic is a trope (Disney death = character like Baloo or Winnie the Pooh appear to die but spring back to life) and a source of academic study - |lang_fr DEATH IN DISNEY FILMS: IMPLICATIONS FOR CHILDREN’S UNDERSTANDING OF DEATH, a College of New Jersey, Ewing study. However, a list of deaths in Disney films would only be justified AFTER the topic proves notable enough for an article. Canuckle 02:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as both non-notable and non-encyclopeadic. Agnetha1234 14:49, 20 May 2007 (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.