Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Disney Princess firsts

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. Sandstein 15:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney Princess firsts

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article is nothing but random unimportant trivia rooted in original research with mostly dubious or primary sourcing (Fanpop, Daily Mail, OhMyDisney, blogs). This is not a Disney wiki. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Enormous amount of WP:OR and unenyclopedic trivia. Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire per nom. "First Disney Princess to have hazel eyes"??? Not surprisingly, this "first", like nearly all the rest, is unsourced because nobody gives a damn. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because the article does not have many references does not mean that they don't WP:NEXIST. For example, searching on "first Disney princess", I find Tiana in Kidding Around: The Child in Film and Media and Movie Bliss: A Hopeless Romantic Seeks Movies to Love as the first Disney princess to have her own professional goals [1] and [2], Snow White as the first Disney princess who set standards the next had to follow in Gender-specific Speech in Disney Animated Movies: Language as an Indicator of Female Inferiority and Politeness? [3], Snow White as the first Disney princess in a full-length feature film, but not the first Disney princess ever in 'Snow White Wasn’t the First Disney Princess', Smithsonian magazine [4], and yes, Belle as the first Disney princess with hazel eyes in '7 things you didn't now about Disney's 'Beauty and the Beast' princess Belle', Independent (Ireland) [5]. The contents of the list could be debated (why have any other characteristics listed under Snow White? She was the first Disney princess, full stop), but the first Disney princess with X characteristic is a notable topic. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got my first period back in sixth grade. That doesn't make it worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, and such minutiae isn't any more special just because it happens to a fictional character. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has that been written up in several books and articles in journals or newspapers, thus meeting WP:SIGCOV?? Were thousands of people around the world aware of it when it happened, or that it was about to happen, and are they interested to read about it now, leading to the aforementioned SIGCOV? Most of the Delete arguments here seem to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any policies. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: Apologies for interrupting the conversation, but why should this have a separate list? Why can't the information (only the information supported by reliable, third-party sources) be incorporated into the articles on the characters instead? Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If these facts are so important then they could be mentioned in the characters' own articles; I see no reason for this to be a separate article. Just because some reliable newspapers may occasionally print such trivia, doesn't mean that we need to. Spiderone 10:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - this does not pass WP:GNG and honestly is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Skirts89 (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary and trivial garbage for subject matters not suited for its own article. –eggofreason^talk 16:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It is pure trivia, and any important/notable firsts should be incorporated into the article on the respective character. Aoba47 (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:437:7064:EA7A:6495 (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The general rule WP:LISTN for stand-alone lists is that it is notable if there is significant coverage of the elements of the list as a group. This is not true in this case, where the list has been assembled by cobbling various trivia facts about the characters - which indeed also falls foul of WP:TRIVIA. Finally, while some may find it WP:INTERESTING or, alas, WP:USEFUL, these are not standards for inclusion on Wikipedia. However, perhaps some of the information would be worthy of transfer to the individual articles? NoCOBOL (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2019 (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.