Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney XD (Australia)

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. (non-admin closure) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:[reply]

Comment. This is similar to Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment But if it is included within one article it reduces the amount of information available regarding the international variations. It condenses an entire article down to a single paragraph which doesn't necessarily reflect the significance of the channel. Not to mention the fact that it would significantly increase the size of the main Disney XD article which is unnecessary. Forbesy 777 (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]
Keep It's even ridiculous to do so. --John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Toon Disney Guy (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this shameful lazy way of improving pages. I also want to merge the UK Disney page with the Old Fox kids page to improve its standard. IF others for other areas improve the page then it make them all better.

I think is shameful and lazy to fork all these channel market version then let them rot. Spshu (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not the most perfect article but AFD isn't used as clean up fixes, Utter pointless & not very well thought nomination IMHO!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When they are forks then yes AFD should clean up them up by rolling them up. None of the individual have been show to be notable on their own (may be the Canadian version might, but it has just a paragraph worth of information beyond the main DXD article). In the future the channel version might stand alone notability and content wise, but not know. Spshu (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with →Davey2010→ that it would be better for the articles to be updated and maintained than be deleted. It would be better for editors to take the time to outline the variations in the channels from the main U.S. Disney XD, expanding the articles to include as much relevant information as possible. I can't speak for the majority of the Disney XD articles, but in regards to the Australian version I have been the main contributor ensuring it has a detailed history and legitimate and reliable references. Forbesy 777 (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2014 (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.