Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Disney princes


 * 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 keep. Despite some concerns over the list's usefulness, there seems to be a clear consensus that the topic is sufficiently notable. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 23:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Disney princes

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A non-notable list of characters with no inclusion criteria and totally random. Those characters in the list that have met Notability have their own pages. Unlike Disney Princess or Disney Villains, this is not even a franchise. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  05:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How is there no inclusion criteria? "Prince" characters in official Disney movies seems fairly well defined, to me. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 05:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are users who insist in adding characters that are not princes like the captain from Mulan or the thief from Rapunzel, but remove actual princes like Simba from The Lion King only because he is not human. But even if it had a criteria, it is still a collection of non-notable, redundant material. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  05:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, any content issues with the article itself should certainly be dealt with, but this hardly seems to be the appropriate venue for doing so. I don't really have an opinion on the notability of the list (which is something that should be established in the lead of the article... although, lists tend to be less beholden to notability then regular articles in my experience). Stating that this is a redundant list grabs my attention, though. What is it redundant to? — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 05:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is redundant since all information on the characters in it is already covered in their own articles and/or in the plot of the films. What is the next step? List of Disney males? As I stated in the nomination, it is not even a franchise. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  05:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah... I thought that you meant that there was a similar list elsewhere. I don't find the argument that the information exists elsewhere to be convincing. For one thing, you can say the exact same thing about any list on Wikipedia. Lists compile existing information into one central locale; that's their reason for being.
 * Anyway, I just won't cast a !vote. The article certainly needs work, but deletion doesn't seem necessary. It could be deleted though, if no one wants to work on the article itself, I guess. I was really just curious about the reasoning in the nomination, is all. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 20:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can see how it will lead to problems, but a good article could be written on the subject. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The existence of Category:Fictional princes implies that editors don't generally find it hard to identify princes, but if "Disney princes" aren't a franchise (as noted by Lord Opeth) then there's no particular reason to have a list of them. Even if this page is kept, the plot summaries should be cut. EALacey (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is List of Celebrity Big Brother housemates a "franchise"? Is List of YouTube personalities a "franchise"? What about List of celebrities who own wineries and vineyards, List of HIV-positive people or List of people with epilepsy? No, yet some of those articles are at FL status. Go figure. WossOccurring (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks good to me. Individually notable. Seems a reasonable and appropriate list of interest and use to our readers. A merge might be worth considering, but the existence of a broader category doesn't negate the worth and appropriateness of this list article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per EALacey's reasoning.--NiceHotShower (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and include entries in a Category:Princes in Disney productions cat. --EEMIV (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:CLS, lists are not superseded by categories. The assertion that the topic is not notable is not supported by any evidence.  In fact, if one does due diligence, per WP:BEFORE, one finds that there is an entire book about this topic and much commentary in other sources.  Colonel Warden (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Colonel Warden's comments. The nomination seems to be solely based on WP:UGLY. WossOccurring (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per EALacey. JBsupreme (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The deletion was based on not being notable. But there are many references to Disney princes.  The list versus category debate does not need to be re-opened.  So we are left with unclear criteria or the wrong things being included.  These are solved with editing not deletion.Obina (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable, verifiable and per above. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The list's inclusion criteria are in its title. Having a one-stop list of these Disney Princes aids readers.  Sourcing is easily available. If well-meaning editors add or remove information that do not fit the criteria of "Disney princes", this calls for correction through editing, not sacking the entire article. Time to fix it.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subject is notable, even if it not a franchise. And there are clear criteria for inclusion, even if some editors ignore them (which can be dealt with through editing). Rlendog (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is a list that has parallels, credibility and useful links. Content disagreements alone do not warrant deletion.Sabiona (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep While a category could adequately replace this, lists and categories are not considered redundant in these parts. Absent that, I frankly don't seeing anything in the nomination or the subsequent comments that meets deletion criteria. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:45, 4 January 2010 (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.