Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Disney (2nd nomination)


 * 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger One ping only 12:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ultimate_Disney
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not seem to be notable. No independent 3rd-party references, tagged for nearly 6 years. --Eepeex (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Could not find grounds for notability. Prior AfD arguments alluded to coverage on other sites (which themselves are of dubious reliability), but failed to list verifiable citations, and the coverage could have been incidental. Reviewers in that AfD argued based on inherited notability ("supported by a notable film critic") and the mere existence of coverage ("there is indeed third-party coverage") rather than Wikipedia's modern requirements for significant coverage from reliable sources in the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) and notable website guidelines (WP:WEBSITE). Book references I found to "ultimatedisney.com" were all single-line, incidental mentions of where information was found, not coverage about the site itself. The site's current name, DVDizzy, did not turn up in any reliable sources that I checked. ––Agyle (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Apparently the website ultimatedisney.com no longer exists, and the domain name simply redirects to a different general video review site, DVDLizzy.com. Notability and further article improvements will have to be based on solely on historical accounts. ––Agyle (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Move to draft. There's no reason to hide this content from view, as it doesn't contain COPYVIO nor BLP stuff, but it's true that there's little in it that can be reliably sourced. Diego (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 11:44, 10 February 2014 (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.