Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic Kingdom Parade


 * 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. After being relisted 3 times, participants of the discussion have not reached a consensus. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Magic Kingdom Parade

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

plain advertising The Banner talk 14:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Yes the article is advertising, but the topic is notable.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or Major Rewrite: As a big Disney fan and a member of WikiProject Disney and Disney task force on WikiProject Amusement Parks, it is hard for me to suggest the deletion of a Disney-related article. However, an article of this size should have more than 5 sources that have words ("Magic Kingdom Attractions" is just images), and should definitely have more than half of those that are not from a primary source (Disney Parks Blog). Don Dorsey's website is not a great source, except for small details, because it is basically just him bragging about his achievements. Also, the majority of the article (especially the listing the parades) is unsourced. As much as I hate to say it, I have to remove my Disney bias and go with the rational opinion that, unless this article undergoes a major rewrite with the addition of lots of reliable sources, this article should be deleted. Elisfkc (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Agree with Elisfkc that it needs a rewrite...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 22:37, 26 December 2016 (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.