Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Disney XD (Australia): Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:29, 5 May 2014 editSpshu (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users30,712 edits counter← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:19, 6 May 2014 edit undoJohn123521 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users14,614 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 29:		Line 29:
	:'''Comment'''. Exactly, it is '''one''' "internationally successful franchise", thus one article on the subject. ] (]) 13:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)		:'''Comment'''. Exactly, it is '''one''' "internationally successful franchise", thus one article on the subject. ] (]) 13:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Keep''' Yes, the Disney XD article series is a complete ]-farm run roughshod by 'channel fans', but deletion is the last avenue that should be pursued. Sources should be found to keep these articles, and to mention local variations in sourcing, along with keeping control of the IP's. <font face="Myriad Web">''']''' <span style="color:dark blue">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></font> 21:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)		*'''Keep''' Yes, the Disney XD article series is a complete ]-farm run roughshod by 'channel fans', but deletion is the last avenue that should be pursued. Sources should be found to keep these articles, and to mention local variations in sourcing, along with keeping control of the IP's. <font face="Myriad Web">''']''' <span style="color:dark blue">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></font> 21:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
			*'''Keep''' It's even ridiculous to do so. --]<small> (]-]) ]</small> 13:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:19, 6 May 2014

Disney XD (Australia)

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

forking This and the additional Disney XD are forks and don't stand on their own for notability with most having primary sources. It probably easier to understand the Disney XD subject if all information is in one article instead of being duplicated in several articles. Most all of the information has been consolidated to the Disney XD article. Spshu (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because content forking:

Comment. This is similar to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jetix (US) were there were multi-market articles with limited unique content. The result was delete. Spshu (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment Not really similar; Jetix is a dead brand/band-aid to keep Toon Disney going until the XD rebrand, whose articles languished for years with only misguided nostalgia added since its end; deletion was justified there as there was nowhere else for the article to go. XD is still living and will probably be around for years. Nate • (chatter) 22:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Yes, it is similar. Jetix was a stand alone brand in Europe and were in some markets Toon Disney existed. Jetix and Toon Disney expressly merged into Disney XD while some Jetix were replaced with Disney Channels and one Toon Disney became a Disney Cinemagic. They have exist about the same time, five years. If you have bothered to look at the Disney XD articles they are similar to the various Jetix articles as they are primarily under sourced with a single source (some times just the national DisneyXD website or the same sources over and over) and/or duplicating programming sources from the main DXD website. They don't stand alone at this time; based on what sources are available now amounts to two articles at this point, Disney XD and Disney XD programming list. And are we not suppose to be globalizing WP not "Balkan-landizing" it through individual national articles. Spshu (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Disney XD is an international franchise, where each channel has different details relating to launch, availability, schedule, reception, etc. If Disney XD channel articles are deleted that would give cause for deleting every international network, not just kids channels (e.g. Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, FX, FOX, Comedy Central, MTV, Discovery Channel, etc.). Forbesy 777 (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment. So did Jetix. Most are Jetix or Toon Disney Channels that were converted to DXD. How many times can that be stated? You are mistaken that there will be no Disney XD article, there would be one article Disney XD. A sections in the DXD article can be developed if a great deal of detail for a particular market's channel is needed. Spshu (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep, all of these are valid channels. They all have different owners, content, and availability. Disney XD (Europe) is actually several channels, and could be split. 117Avenue (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment. All do not have different "owners". Only the Canada version is owned by any one but a Disney subsidiary (Astra Media Trust) and operationally wise are considered Disney Channels Worldwide units. All the Jetix channels were "valid" channels, but was merged together any ways. Being valid channels isn't a requirement. --Spshu (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep. An internationally successful franchise. 172.56.2.37 (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Exactly, it is one "internationally successful franchise", thus one article on the subject. Spshu (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep Yes, the Disney XD article series is a complete WP:ADVERT-farm run roughshod by 'channel fans', but deletion is the last avenue that should be pursued. Sources should be found to keep these articles, and to mention local variations in sourcing, along with keeping control of the IP's. Nate • (chatter) 21:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep It's even ridiculous to do so. --John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Categories: