Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Queens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Michig (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Queens[edit]

Disney Queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
List of Disney queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Honestly I don't think this is a notable topic, one that needs a separate article. It could be listified into a "List of Disney queens" article or something, but I don't think there's coverage about "Disney queens" as a whole, instead they're about the individual characters. These could instead be discussed in a different Disney article or at List of fictional monarchs. At first, I was thinking of requesting a merge to another topic rather than an AfD, but I couldn't find an appropriate target, so here it is. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The categorization into "Good Queens" and "Evil Queens" seems arbitrary, POV and WP:OR. DOCUMENTERROR
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, POV and original research. Cavarrone 11:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No sources have been provided to establish that this is a topic of its own that has been covered elsewhere. Also, the two articles covered in this AfD are nearly identical to each other. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2015 (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.