Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Consumer Products

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 speedy keep. Unanimous keep, nomination withdrawn Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Consumer Products[edit]

Not particularly notable; article has nearly no non-advert-ish content Cybercobra (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a company which supposedly generates 26 billion dollars a year can establish notability in some fashion or other. Did the nominator actually look for sources? For crying out loud, in Google Books I get 345 hits for "Disney Consumer Products"--you can't tell me that no reliable sources are going to come out of that. I propose a very speedy keep of this article, especially since someone *ahem* has cleaned up the article by removing spam and duplicate info. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ditto ^ . Additional comment - it's a very short article. Perhaps such brief pages for Walt Company Divisions should be merged to a new "Walt Disney Company Divisions" page and their links redirected to there, any divisions which have significant content (quantity) being left as they are (as separate pages). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it wasn't always that short... Cybercobra cut some, and I cut some more. No doubt stuff can be added, but what was there should not be restored. But do the Google search and you'll see there's plenty of material out there. Drmies (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I second the sentiment regarding merging this into another page; there's just not enough material to warrant its own article. DCP isn't very notable outside of its relation with Disney, hence this AfD, but I am fully open to merging it. Additionally, going back into the history, the article seems to have originated from some possible SPA/sockpuppet accounts and was edited a good bit by a Disney IP --Cybercobra (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shortness is not a reason for deletion - especially when the shortness is less than a day old. Arguably, any article could be pruned as much and deleted if that were the case. So we are left with "notability" - it passes. Too short? restore the material just deleted and add cites for it. Collect (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Drmies reasoning. ArcAngel (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Don't merge. I think a short page is better than merging this into something else...it's an entity of its own. And I do think this page could be expanded considerably. Cazort (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion request Withdrawn per aforementioned recent changes since AfD listing. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:13, 4 February 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.