Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney animated feature film source material


 * 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   no consensus. Equally split views, with no particular side coming out with a strong policy reason one way or another. Enough debate has taken place so no reason to relist for now. Nja 247 10:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Disney animated feature film source material

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nothing but a list of links with some OR guestimates. Fails WP:N, WP:Lists and seems pretty redundant to existing lists like List of fiction works made into feature films -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename, and Improve. I would so want to delete the article, as I completely agree with you. However, in the interest of trying to save articles that could provide value, I suggest it be renamed to List of Disney animated source material and all reasonably well-known items kept. The obvious OR items can be purged, but the classic film material is fairly well-documented as to what the original sources were. From there, we just need to be more diligent in keeping the cruft off the page. SpikeJones (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article on each film should contain the information on its source material. An article on the Disney films as a whole should also discuss the various types of sources used. I don't see a reason to put a list together of this aspect of each film, besides which most are obvious from the titles. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Sources obviously exist, and list could conceivably be useful. Should definitely be renamed to a list, and heavily tagged as needing citations. Purge OR and cruft as necessary. Noisalt (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep' - Agree with Noisalt. Although each film article could and should discuss sources, having all the sources in one list is beneficial for users, so they do not have to look up each individual article.  And while an article on the Disney films as a whole should also discuss the various types of sources used, there is much more to discuss in such an article, so this information would not be as accessible, or may be eliminated to save space.  This is not to say the article doesn't need improvement, but needing improvement is not a reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Northwestgnome. This information really belongs in the individual articles, otherwise you lose essential context. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a useful alternative organization, and there is no reason why this information can't be both here and in the individual articles.  The source material for Disney films is a very frequent subject in reliable sources, especially those that are based on real incidents.  Obviously significant cleanup of OR is required.  Powers T 13:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Northwestgnome.75.142.54.211 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2009 (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.