Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Disney's Funny Factory

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. The consensus I see is that the existing sources are sufficient to establish notability by the guidelines that exist for this article subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney's Funny Factory[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am also nominating:

Unremarkable and inconsequential DVD compilations. --wooden superman 10:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I deproDed all those pages (same nominator; was yesterday) (and redirected one), adding one ref to each of these pages. Unremarkable and inconsequential is not a good reason for deletion in my view. I have no time to improve the pages right now, especially as this is a bundled nom. But for example for the Small World, one click shows that some reviews exist (DVD talk; this; and that seems to be the case for EACH volume of EACH of these compilations.....) Has a BEFORE been performed for all these compilations?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animation, Film and Disney. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All: Besides the reviews already added, Walt Disney's Funny Factory also has reviews in The Providence Journal and the Journal & Courier, Walt Disney's It's a Small World of Fun! also has reviews in the Journal & Courier, The Globe & Mail and the Times Record News, and Walt Disney's Timeless Tales also has reviews in Deseret News and The Dallas Morning News. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just don't see any true notability for this; Disney put out many of these compilations for kids to watch on long drives, and this is another garden variety collection. A mass of reviews≠automatic notability, and there needs to be more than reviews for this to stay up. Nate • (chatter) 16:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry but, as I am certain that you know, notabilty on Wikipedia is based on the existence of reliable independent sources covering the subject. In particular, multiple reliable reviews are generally considered enough for articles about film productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me repeat again; there needs to be more than reviews for this to stay up. I don't look at just reviews when I determine deletion/keep, because there is well more to an article than just reviewing a work, and I just can't see beyond reviews for a basic consumer DVD of cartoons whose purpose was more distraction than collection. Nate • (chatter) 23:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can only direct you to the guidelines again. That these compilations were made more for distraction than collection is possible (and some reviewers concur with you, btw) but that's not exactly the point, I'm afraid. I really have no further comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For information: On 2nd thoughts and after further checking, I undid the redirect of the 4th Deproded page I mentioned in my !vote (was far from perfect) and moved the page (the name is now EXTREMELY generic but that's the actual title of the compilation series). Just saying this here for information as maybe the nominator might wish to know. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: These are absolutely run-of-the-mill products. They exist, but they are not notable. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they are not notable. Sources on the page and presented here by Somebodyidkfkdt tend to prove just the opposite. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are WP:ROTM product reviews. --wooden superman 09:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're reviews= significant coverage from reliable independent sources. And that's the requirement on Wikipedia. And no, on top of that, sorry, I don't think you can call them "run-of-the-mill", especially after reading the essay whose link you provided and that I am inviting you to read (again) too. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These reviews are not the WP:SIGCOV required to demonstrate notability, they are just run of the mill product reviews. These are inconsequential DVD compilation releases which, I'm sorry, have no place in an encyclopedia per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are some DVD and Blu-ray box sets which are critically acclaimed and have a tremendous amount of coverage in reviews, etc., but for the most part, even these do not warrant articles. These trivial little entries in the Disney catalogue just simply aren't worthy of inclusion. --wooden superman 10:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Your opinion about those compilations was clear from the start. These reviews are significant coverage and denying it is almost bizarre, I think. You don't need positive reviews (let alone, "critical acclaim") nor "tremendous amount of coverage" to prove something is notable on WP. You need multiple reviews. Some have been presented. Calling the subject "trivial", "unremarkable", etc., expresses, I'm afraid, only your opinion about the compilations, and has little to do with their notability (according to WP). My personal opinion about them has, for example, nothing to do with my !vote. I have no further comment (as I fear I could only repeat what I have already said) and I only wish that, next time you take an article to AFd or ProD one, you perform a (better) BEFORE. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are trivial and unremarkable. It's not like we're talking about the Walt Disney Treasures series here. --wooden superman 11:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. Again, this discussion should be based on what the sources can establish not the editors' opinion of the article subject. Please assess the sources brought up over the course of this nomination period.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reviews provided seem to establish significant coverage. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV with multiple critical reviews cited in each article. Walt Disney's Funny Factory alone has four independent critical reviews and a journal article cited in the article. Additional coverage in news sources provided above by Somebodyidkfkdt clinch this as an obvious keep. The delete votes are not based in policy and are essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. The reviews found by Mushy Yank and Somebodyidkfkdt as well as the reviews already linked in the articles clearly establish that all three of these DVD series meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles.
The deletion arguments "there needs to be more than reviews for this to stay up" and "WP:ROTM product reviews" are not supported by Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles, Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, or any other policy or guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::Nonsense Cunard. That's never been consensus opinion at AFD regarding articles in the creative arts. Critical reviews in independent secondary sources are exactly the type of RS required for articles on all types of works of art.A review is SIGCOV, and if we have multiple reviews it passes GNG. period.4meter4 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

?..... That's precisely what Cunard is saying.......I think you've misread the comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct, Mushy Yank. I agree with what 4meter4 said about multiple critical reviews meaning a work of art passes the general notability guideline. I quoted those sentences written by editors supporting deletion to say those views are not supported by policies or guidelines. Cunard (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I must have read something wrong when I was tired. Apologies.4meter4 (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: The reception section in each of these articles and the reviews mentioned above allows them to pass notability. They can all be improved rather than deleted. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2024 (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.