Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Disney Platinum and Diamond Editions


 * 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 redirect to List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases. Deor (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Walt Disney Platinum and Diamond Editions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article appears to be an aggregator for data from Amazon, since almost every source is a product listing from there. The rest are first-party promotional releases from Disney itself or mentions of the special features on the releases. No discussion of why this particular branding is notable and thus deserves an encyclopedia article. Recommend deletion per WP:NOTCATALOG and failure to establish general notability.  McDoob AU93  13:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * While I find the article's referencing of Amazon.com very excessive, I'm not sure if the topic should be considered non-notable. There are secondary sources that talk about the Platinum Collection, such as Variety here, The Hollywood Reporter here, and Los Angeles Times here. An alternative approach may be to greatly simplify this article to just list the films and their release dates, and focus the content on what the secondary sources report, not back covers and interior booklets. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Things I'd be looking for that would save this article, in my opinion, are: What makes a film worthy of this designation (for example, Criterion Collection)? What was the purpose? Why did they switch from Platinum to Diamond, and what's next, rhodium? Admittedly the last one is rhetorical, but it gets to my point ... the purpose of an encyclopedia article for a marketing name. I looked at all three sources and the only mention is the inclusion of the name; no critical commentary, no history, etc. Just that it was the marketing flourish added to the package. -- McDoob  AU93  15:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that this line could be considered not worth having its own article. Reviewing it, I saw that this existed: List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases, with "Platinum Editions" and "Diamond Editions" sections having simple lists. While that list article may have its own issues, it would be worth just redirecting this article there and have a consensus to add any relevant detail (like what I linked above) in the relevant section, preempting the corresponding list of films. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases, as stated by others below, as a more straightforward list without the mostly promotional content. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-direct to List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases. It's a simpler title for all Disney video releases. Let's take a trip to the Pearl Editions (or whatever the next editions after the Diamond Editions are.) What should we do when the first Pearl Edition is out?? With this article, you'd have to re-title it Walt Disney Platinum, Diamond, and Pearl Editions. With the list page, no move is needed. (Note that Pearl Edition is just the name I chose to use as an example when it comes to understanding this statement.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases. The secondary sources discovered by Erik could be covered by one short paragraph in the main list article. Basically, anything that stops this article from being a form of original research (taken from Amazon listings) is going to be supported by me. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support re-direct as an option to deletion. -- McDoob  AU93  13:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The point of difference with this article is that it allows a conversation on the Disney vault to take place, and also allows us to clearly explain the types of special/bonus features Disney provides with each new iteration. Rather than a mere list, it explains why such sets keep on being released, and how they have been received. (for example i know some reviewers don't like the "remastered version" of films as they wash out the colours of the original). It would have to have Gold and Pearl added as well, but I can see an article on this topic existing.--Coin945 (talk) 08:02, 24 June 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.