Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Create

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 redirect to Disney.com#History. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Create

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

Little evidence of notability. Sole apparent source is http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/07/get-creative-with-disney-create-online/ and it is not clear to me that that is an article subject to editorial control rather than effectively a Wired-hosted blog - it certainly wasn't sub-edited. The article itself would have to be stubified if not deleted, and that sole source is quite vague on the subject of exactly what Disney Create _is_. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note: GeekDad is one of those rare exceptions to the blogging rule. It's a blog, but it's an official one that's edited by the Wired staff, so it does have editorial review and would be considered a reliable enough source for notability purposes. The author of this particular piece isn't one of their constant contributors (you can see a full list at the bottom of this page), but he is an official one. However at the same time we would need more than one source to show notability, so one isn't enough. Just dropping in to verify that we can use this, in any case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Disney.com#History. This has only two reviews: a Commonsensemedia review and one from Wired. This just wasn't enough to show me that this aspect of the overall Disney.com website merits its own entry on Wikipedia. It would probably be a valid enough redirect, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2013 (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.