Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Revival

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Revival

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Disney revival" does not meet WP:GNG. The only mentions I can find are trivial and/or on blogs and fansites. This reads more like an essay than an encyclopedic entry. See WP:NOT#FANSITE. Tchaliburton (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this article doesn't look nice for Wikipedia, all you have to do is alter it to be similar to Disney Renaissance. Georgia guy (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Book hits seem to refer to the earlier Eisner period, not the present. I'm not terribly convinced that those references mean to establish it as the name of an era in the company history, or I would suggest a redirect. Mangoe (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When is this Eisner period?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1984-2005. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any reason to delete this article based on the period rather than the term?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. Mangoe (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Period" in the question means period as in period of time. Term means the term "Disney Revival". Georgia guy (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This period of 2009-???? is arbitrary and the topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. Changing the title won't fix this. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most companies have ups and down. It seems like the author of the article has just picked an arbitrary period in which the company produced a few hit films. The Disney Renaissance was generally regarded as a new era for the company, not just in terms of success but a complete overhaul of business practises and expansion into other media. Moreover, a "revival" generally follows a downturn, but following the departure of Eisner in 2004 the company continued to grow with huge hits such as "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "Alice in Wonderland" and the acquisition of Pixar and Marvel. For this article to exist—regardless of what it is called—the specific period needs to be discussed by reliable sources as a notable era on its own merits, which doesn't seem to be the case here. There is a brief history of Disney's different eras at [1]. Betty Logan (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Attempt to establish, on Wikipedia rather than in third-party sources, an unestablished term for an unestablished period (Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh are considered disappointments by the studio itself). Never seen this term used as a proper noun in any third-party reliable source (all uses of term in source search above are as "Disney revival", note case). Article content duplicates coverage of Walt Disney Animation Studios and Modern animation in the United States. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fan-driven original synthesis, pure and simple. No place in an encyclopedia. --McDoob AU93 13:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, you still would have voted to delete this article even from the Disney Wiki?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "the Disney Wiki". --McDoob AU93 00:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://disney.wikia.com Georgia guy (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the Disney Wiki. It may have different standards for verifiability than this site does. For Wikia, it may be just fine. For Wikipedia, it isn't. --McDoob AU93 00:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you're saying it isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia, which means any encyclopedia. Georgia guy (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say any encyclopedia that isn't complete shit then. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll say it ... no, not for any encyclopedia, and especially not this one. --McDoob AU93 02:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Did a search, nothing reliable, I always question book sources as they are hard to verify and easy to imbellish. Just give the perception of promotion by means of wikipedia.--0pen$0urce (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a term that was just made in up in the editors mind. Koala15 (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disproof of Koala15's statement. Disney Wikia uses it. Georgia guy (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But how do we know the editor who created this article didn't also create the Wikia article? Wikis aren't reliable sources. --McDoob AU93 16:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Disney wiki to see if they actually created the Disney wiki article. Georgia guy (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Out of curiosity, I did. It was created in March 2014 by someone using the screen name "Nintenmouse". We have no way of proving that Nintenmouse and Pixar1986 are (or are not) the same person. And you know what else? It doesn't matter. It's still another wiki, and by WP:UGC it's not reliable and thus cannot be used as a basis for an edit here, much less an entire article's raison d'être. --McDoob AU93 17:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC

Delete. The source in question is on a wikia, but not on this wikipedia. Plus WP:GNG and WP:UGC, I think it's safe to say that this article is unnecessary. The reliable sources part is heavily missing here, no credible proof to admit this article. Lesmiserables95 (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.