Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Disney Platinum Editions

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 no consensus. MuZemike 01:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Platinum Editions[edit]

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

Unnotable Home video and release labels. The "Platinum editions" are nothing more than a marketing gimick. The entire thing is completely unsourced except for 3 fan site "sources" and an Amazon link. The same applies to the new Diamond Editions. Individual DVD releases are already covered in the respective film articles, and Disney's general home video release practice of vaulting titles belongs in Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment. The labels themselves have received no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources,

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from similar issues, namely being unnotable video release labels used by Disney fro its video releases. These are unreferenced all together, consisting of nothing but a list of titles and dates:

Has more content, but almost all of it entirely unreferenced beyond a few spots, and those references are about the film's themselves, and not the general topic of the "Classics" label/Brand, and its been tagged for notability issues since June.

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment.~~ Keep. Is this any different to any other DVD list? Not that any should set a precedent, but perhaps this information is here because wikipedia users want it here. I think deleting these pages would probably bring about the information being added in another list, so maybe, rather than delete, perhaps all the information should be collected together to make one notable and properly referenced article? Rob Sinden (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any other DVD lists at all like these, except List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases which is under a separate AFD, but most other studios don't do the 5000 label thing. It isn't appropriate nor notable in other studio articles, but the Disney articles, in particular, are in horrible shape all around. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about List of Criterion Collection DVD releases, for example? I think the information should remain in some form, but agree that it could be more coherent, and properly referenced. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could have sworn that was deleted before. The information already exists, in the individual film articles. The name of the label on the DVD seems like something that would interest serious Disneyphiles and fans, not the general user who likely just wants a List of Disney feature films. How many more Disney film lists are needed? There is also: List of Disney theatrical animated features, List of Disney direct-to-video films, List of television films produced for Disney Channel, and List of Disney film soundtracks -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but can't really see that just because the information is included on the article pages that these lists shouldn't be here. That's what the lists are for. If an article on say carrot states that "a carrot is a vegetable" doesn't proclude carrot from going on a page called "List of vegetables". There are far more trivial lists out there. These lists do for the most part show what they're supposed to - and with proper referencing and some cleaning up and maybe some merging they could become perfectly valid. And as far as I can see, the lists don't fall foul of WP:SALAT. Why not have them, they just need improving. Therefore changing my view to Keep. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly with a rename or merge. Lists such as these are integral parts of a film encyclopedia, which is part of what Wikipedia is trying to be. Certainly referencing needs improvement, but I'm confident there are sources out there. Powers ^T 14:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it integral and notable to have a list of every video and DVD release made by Disney? Will we also make lists of every video and DVD released by Touchstone, Paramount, Sony, etc. What makes Disney special/unique that its sales and collector catalogs are here? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: one, simply that someone has taken the time to compile this list but has not yet taken the time to compile the other lists you mention. Two, that Disney has such an extensive back-catalog that they regularly re-release in different editions and under different branding. We cover those releases in each individual film's article, so this is just another way of looking at the same data. Powers ^T 16:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For point one see WP:EFFORT.Darrenhusted (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EFFORT says that "someone worked hard on this" is not a reason to keep an article. That is not remotely what I said. I was explaining the reason why Disney releases have an article and others do not -- simply that someone has taken the time to make the former and no one has yet made the latter. Powers ^T 02:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a catalog. Disney films should be discussed as works of art. How they are packaged for sale is not worth an article (although the info could be mentioned in their own articles). The same goes for music, video games, etc. Borock (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do these articles fall foul of WP:NOTCATALOG though? I can't see that they do. Also, the DVD packages, and the work regarding the restoration of the material included on the series seen as a whole could be regarded as being historically significant. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although these articles have weaknesses and a specific commercial bias, it's valuable and is a noteable part of our culture. Today I came looking for information and Walt Disney Classics specifically answers my questions about "Disney Classics". Wikipedia has many less interesting lists (just try clicking "Random article" 10 times!). The page Walt Disney Classics has this deletion warning link and should be kept. The pages about "Platinum" packaging etc are less interesting but I'd still keep them. Rixs (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, and consider which should be merged. This particular franchise is notable enough for this. Of course the information is in the individual film articles, but that very fact is what makes this a justifiable and not indiscriminate list--they're important enough. An encyclopedia exists to bvring information together in useful ways. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 2 December 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.