Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disney

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Disney. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Disney|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Disney. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disney/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Disney

Hannah Montana: Live in London

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable single concert. Only contains one source. Nothing found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Disney, and United Kingdom. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 17:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have expanded with database sources including two reports from reporters/critics at the concert and a number of other references. Jahaza (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chipocalypse Now

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

Been BLARed and reverted multiple times. All sources either fail WP:SIGCOV, are not reliable, or are WP:PRIMARY. Quick WP:BEFORE search showed nothing of substance. Should probably redirect to Big City Greens season 2. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Disney. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big City Greens season 2 I also couldn't find any good sources showing notability for this episode. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 22:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Big City Greens episodes#Season 2 (2019–21): Nothing to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Dream Takes You

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

Entirely non-notable song. This may be a good article; it is nevertheless fancruft. Only question for me is where it shoule be redirected; I now think the film a better choice than the list of the srtiste's recordings. TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I understand the concern. Obviously in the seven years since the article was first created, it can be improved/updated. That said, I don’t agree that this is “entirely non-notable” or mere “fancruft.”

Per WP:GNG and WP:NSONG, there is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources specifically about the song:

Billboard covered and critiqued the track upon release, discussing its radio prospects and the international Spanish-language version.
Soundtrack.net published a review that addresses “Where the Dream Takes You” directly within the album review, as did AllMusic
Filmtracks likewise discusses the song’s placement and function in the soundtrack.
It was nominated for Best Original Song Written Directly for a Film at the 2001 World Soundtrack Awards, a major industry distinction that goes well beyond routine coverage.

These are not trivial database entries but substantial third-party discussions. That demonstrates the subject meets notability standards for a standalone song article.

I agree the article should be improved and properly referenced with these sources, and I’m happy to work on that. But the sourcing shows that the song is not “entirely non-notable,” and therefore merits its own article rather than being redirected. Changedforbetter (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite - There are definitely good sources here (Billboard most notably), but there is a lot of unreliable sources here as well. This definitely needs a GA Reassesment, but I still think it can work as an article if it were to be trimmed. If it were to be redirected, Atlantis: The Lost Empire (soundtrack) is a much better target. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Changedforbetter. Definitely needs a reassessment but there is WP:SIGCOV. मल्ल (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Winnie-the-Screwed

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

There seems to be no WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this commercial after 2022. It got some coverage at first but does not seem to have had any lasting impact years later. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Disney, and Internet. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As with films, coverage at the time of publication is sufficient. - E. Ux 04:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanishing of S.S. Willie

AfDs for this article:

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

I cannot find any notable coverage of this film after January 2024. It appears to have gained a lot of attention on release but has no WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a year later. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Disney, and Internet. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: SUSTAINED is not a good criterion to judge films. Reviews are generally published at the time of their release. - E. Ux 22:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am on a multiday travel (with limited internet), so I just copy-paste what I wrote on the previous deletion-discussion, because I feel this argument still stands. Especially with a film, that will always not recieve the same level of media attention a couple of years after its release:

Only made the page because of the high volume of media mentions it got including from credible online entertainment sources like Bloody Disgusting and Joblo.com, i would argue that most short films don't nearly get that level of exposure.'x

I feel if a piece of media get's this amount of media-attention, for whatever reason, it transcends "just being a YouTube-video" even disregarding quality.

A similar, but maybe more high profile case, to me would be Absolute Proof which was nothing more then a extended low quality internet video with no cinematic quality, and can not even be seen online anymore. However it got a spike in popularity when it won a couple of Razzies.

This is maybe not a direct comparison but I am just making the argument why I personally think high profile media attention outways "quality" or "viewership".

Jonastav89 (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My stance is still the same. I won't fight against it being kept, but I am concerned that much of this is based on a single press release. They're all generally the same: "This movie released! It's so wild that they made a horror short on a Mickey Mouse short that's in the public ___domain! Here's a link to the video!" They are reacting to the idea of the film, rather than to the film itself. Much of it seems to be clustered around the same point in time, so it's likely that it's either based on a press release sent out to multiple outlets or the same 1-2 initial short articles about the film. There aren't really any true reviews, just quick shock reactions. Even the ComingSoon.net review comes across more like they're reporting on the idea and not a reaction to having watched the short. If we had one article that was a review rather than a "reacting to idea" I'd be more comfortable arguing for a keep. This just feels like something that would be eventually redirected in a few years' time, if no further coverage were to come about. Again, not arguing against notability at all. Just that this is a bit weak. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, I do note that there is an article on Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse. I think I mentioned this elsewhere, but I do think that it would be good to add prose to the article and make it more like Portrayal of East Asians in American film and theater. If anyone wants to work on that, definitely do. It's something I've been meaning to get around to, but haven't had the time as of yet.

This kind of plays into another issue with the "reacting to idea" part of what I wrote above. In the articles people are kind of reacting more to the idea of people making horror movies once one version of a major icon passes into the public ___domain, rather than to the short itself. While yes, the short is part of it and is claimed to be the first known example, none of that really led to any in-depth coverage of it other than "wow, they're really doing this". I also want to note that the other arguments are based on cases where there's actually quite a bit of coverage that goes into some depth. Winning a Razzie is something that would probably be enough to pass NFILM on its own. It's a fairly major, well-known award. It's no Oscar, but it's also pretty selective. And as I mentioned prior, we don't really have anything that could be seen as a true review - they're reactions to the idea. Again, not arguing for a deletion. Just that this would be a weak keep at best for me if I were to argue for that. I feel that if we had a good prose section in the works article, this would be good as a redirect there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not think that sustained applies to media in the same way given that reviews are secondary, but the concern is that this really did not get any actual reviews. There is a mention of it in an academic journal about copyright but it's just a few sentences [1] PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say merge... my concern is not sustained but WP:NFILM, these aren't really reviews. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse. Would fit well there, but coverage is on the thin side for a standalone article. Sandstein 12:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for feedback on Sandstein's merge proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reviews are sufficient to justify an article. SUSTAINED isn't a food marker here, since most media that are a single release (i.e. not something like a TV series) will only ever get a burst of attention when they are released. Cortador (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about my concerns that the reviews aren't substantial enough or even really reviews at all? Only one of the sources in the reception section is really labeled a review - the others are more reactions to the idea of the film without any indication that they watched the short at all. Only one sentence in the ComingSoon.net article could be considered a review - "While it’s easy to look at anything using the public ___domain version of the Mouse with cynicism when we’re just a few days into 2024, this is easily one of the more creative uses of Steamboat Willie to emerge so far." I do think that shorts tend to receive shorter reviews, but this sentence is also a little vague given that the rest of the article is just announcing that the short exists and is available to be seen. It could be argued that it's a reaction to the idea of the short, just like the other sources.

If this is kept, I really want to make sure that the sourcing has been thoroughly discussed and vetted. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, compare that ComingSoon.net source to the Shock Till Ya Drop source in The Facts in the Case of Mister Hollow and you'll see that there's a big difference. Both are from the same parent company, but one is more in depth. The CS.n source runs the risk of being seen as a capsule review, if we were to count it as such.

I just feel like the coverage here is way too light to pass NFILM comfortably or potentially at all. It really only gained attention because it was labeled as the first to take advantage of the public ___domain status and while that doesn't mean that something can't be notable, it does feel a bit like we're relying on inherited notability to do the heavy lifting here. If we were to divorce this from the Mickey Mouse part, I think the arguments for notability would be much different. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse. Very few if none of the sources seem to be actual reviews of the short in the first place, and, as ReaderofthePack notes, seem to mostly be reacting to the concept of the short. 🔮🛷 starmanatee 🛷🔮 (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:per nom.

--KnightMight (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing has changed since the first nomination. Still passes GNG. A film need not be notable for it's actual content, in this case the notability is in that it's a historical first.★Trekker (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infestation: Origins

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

This game seems to not have had any notable media coverage since January 2024. I found one article from September 2024 saying that it would be available for early-access in October, but then no coverage after that point. It seems like this game gained a lot of attention when it was announced but has no WP:SUSTAINED coverage. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Disney. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. The only coverage so far is from trivial aspects of the game, the name and the usage of Mickey Mouse, with nothing of substance about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per zxcvbnm. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse, I wouldn't say delete this article since it is mentioned among the list of works featuring a public ___domain Mickey Mouse. And also, the game only got its notability because of Mickey Mouse's usage, and it's title. plant COAL 23:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for the redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse per above. Seems like a good WP:ATD-R target. --Mika1h (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse as an ATD, is agreeable as per the logic plant pointed above.Lorraine Crane (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vampirina: Teenage Vampire

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

This is an upcoming television series, and so is too soon for an article, and does not satisfy television notability. Nothing in this article describes the third-party significant coverage that is needed to establish general notability. This article was already draftified once, in 2024, so that another unilateral draftification would be move-warring. Draftification may be a valid close of this AFD, but there should be no subsequent move to article space until the series is broadcast and is reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Disney, and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It'a a major-network series with a premiere date in prime time. George Fergus (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why delete it before the show is even released? Cqntralls (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's less than a month to go, idk how that is "too soon" to you. Also, it's a full scale Disney Channel series so is does satisfy television notability.
Coolelvin2 (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An upcoming Disney series. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator claims that the subject lacks the requisite third-party significant coverage, and that aspect has not been meaningfully addressed by other participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disney

Contents

Disney

Hannah Montana: Live in London

Chipocalypse Now

Where the Dream Takes You

Winnie-the-Screwed

The Vanishing of S.S. Willie

Infestation: Origins

Vampirina: Teenage Vampire

Proposed deletions

Categories