Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Disney Legacy Collection

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walt Disney Legacy Collection

Walt Disney Legacy Collection (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Highly commercial and (bordering on?) spam in its current form with text like "The series is a highly-collectible, limited-issue DVD line in one-of-a-kind packaging." Jvhertum 08:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep major product line from a very major company. Disney's nature documentaries in this series won Academy Awards, and Destino was co-created by Salvador Dali. Google News shows a number of professional reviews, so sourcing isn't a problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising intro followed by a list of the packaged content. Sorry, but given the constantly emerging classic editions, super classic collector editions and super special ..., this is not only spam, but hardly notable. Kai A. Simon 17:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no arguement that the content of the "release" is notable - but there should be articles on those pieces already. The release itself is non-notable, and per above it reads like spam and advert. Pastordavid 17:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete The Keep vote sounds like "ILIKEIT." The article promotes a commercial product with gushing praise and is sourced only to the seller's website, Looks like a spamvertisement. If the individual works won academy awards, and if there are reliable sources independent of the seller, add suitable references and any independent reviews in reliable sources and I will reconsider. Edison 18:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless independent sources provided The only reference on this article is the company's website. There are no independent references. The introduction also appears to be biased. Unless it is cleaned up for POV and an independent source is found to reference to verify information in the article, delete. Dugwiki 18:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The movies are notable. The tin case isn't. There may be a marketing campaign out there clever enough to pull off putting an existing product in new "one-of-a-kind packaging" and get independent press on the box, but there's no evidence this one has done such a stunt. --Shirahadasha 01:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Deleteper nom & last comment Johnbod 17:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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.