Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle of Life: An Environmental Fable

Add links
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 keep. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of Life: An Environmental Fable[edit]

Circle of Life: An Environmental Fable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unnotable "film" shown only at the Epcot center in Walt Disney World. Completely fails WP:NF and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Only found one mention on a single Disney park-guide website[1] which is not a third-party item. Prod removed by User:Eeekster with note of "emove prod, seems notable enough to me. Take it to AFD if you think it needs deleting" -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Falls within the scope of several Wikiprojects and is notable because it is included in a Disney theme park. Nearly every Disney theme park attraction has its own article.--BassBone (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the attraction, it is a film that is part of an attraction. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also not a valid keep reason, and what does it being in the scope of any Wikiproject have to do with it? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is an attraction within The Land pavilion at Epcot. The Land is not an attraction itself, simply a grouping of same. As well, mouseplanet.com is completely third-party; they have no formal affiliation with the Walt Disney Company. Powers T 14:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A fansite is not third-party. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is, under any reasonable definition. The Walt Disney Company is the first party; the Wikimedia Foundation is the second party. Any organization not owned or controlled by either of those two entities is thus a third party. A legitimate objection to fan sites is that they may not be reliable, but you cannot reasonably claim that they are not independent. Powers T 19:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per LtPowers. Joe Chill (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per well-reasoned rationale of User:LtPowers. With respects to the nominator, that the film might be shown only at the Epcot center in Walt Disney World, by no means makes it non-notable... indeed, its being seen by millions from around the world over a 14-year-span kinda says the exact opposite... giving it a world-reknown notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Single venue has nothing to do with notability -- The Mousetrap has still never been published in the UK, and only shows at one theater - yet I trust it is "notable." Collect (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of actual significant coverage of it is as well. Listings in tourist directories are not coverage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you mean "not significant coverage"? Powers T 19:35, 12 November 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circle_of_Life:_An_Environmental_Fable&oldid=1080153811"