Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Disney references in Enchanted


 * 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. Clear consensus to keep. Improve article with in-line citations and remove clearly OR entries and content. Mike Cline (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Disney references in Enchanted

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This seems like something that is better off on an independent site like IMDB or something reputable. I also think WP:NOTGUIDE applies here in a way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Amazingly, List_of_Disney_references_in_Enchanted shows that this particular topic has received significant coverage in WP:RS, meeting WP:NOTE. Emily Jensen (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Certainly been discussed enough in the mainstream media to warrant its own article. Moswento (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The references need to be spread throughout the article. Just sticking them in a the references section doesn't allow the reader unfamiliar with the subject to know what specifically they are referencing in the article.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I will admit that I expected TenPoundHammer to be the one to submit this to AFD, per previous conversations that he and I have had on similar articles. From a reference viewpoint, the original article listing contained info direct from a Disney press release. Since then, the film itself (blu-ray) contains specific reference items from the writers/director of the film. Any other entry beyond those items -- especially those from recent anon-IP editors insisting that there were references to 2010-released films(!?!?!?) -- to me qualifies as either vandalism or WP:OR.  There was coverage on the references in the mainstream press:  http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2364190520071124, http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article3041063.ece, http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1574092/story.jhtml to name just three. SpikeJones (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic well-covered in multiple reliable sources. Article indeed has sourcing. Many more are available. AFD is not intended to force cleanup.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as the creation entirely novel list topics contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own idea, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree about pruning the WP:OR items from the list. The Blu-Ray release specifically has "pop-up references" dictating exactly what the filmmakers included as a tribute. See also the legitimate news articles listed above. SpikeJones (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Listcrap and trivia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - article is of a very fixable nature because of multiple reliable sources. Deletion seems unnecessary in this case. Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 17:14, 1 May 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.