Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney DVD

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily redirected per WP:BOLD.--FCYTravis 5 July 2005 08:19 (UTC)

[edit] Disney DVD

Disney DVD is a marketing phrase, not a different DVD format. This article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Novakreo 10:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep - you may be correct or the article may be. Either way, an article that told us the correct answer would be useful. Perhaps in the end this is a redirect. Cutler 11:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Walt Disney Company, if that's the lemma: They're just DVD's, but Disney is trying to broaden the folk-derived term "Disney movie" to the DVD. I.e. they want it to be a type of film, but, since it's never released to the theaters, a type of DVD. It's a marketing ploy. Geogre 13:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur jamesgibbon 13:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. It's just a brand name, not a new format. 23skidoo 15:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Brand name for the Walt Disney Company. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Where do you find proof that Disney DVD is equal to DVD format? I've never seen a Disney DVD with the standard DVD logo. Neither did I find a paper published by Disney, that would reveal them to be equal. Has some one solved this by reverse-engineering all Disney DVDs to prove they all are standard DVDs, even if they don't have the DVD logo? If we are going to claim they are DVDs, we have to be absolutely sure! That is why I did not claim so in the first place. Any suggestions on getting proof are welcome. Otherwise I suggest we keep it the way it is. --Easyas12c 16:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Breathe, friend. It's gonna be okay. --FuriousFreddy 18:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • See my comment below. I think people may be missing Easyas12's point. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Walt Disney Company, no merge. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, uses the same MPEG-2 format, AC3 files, and interface design as a duck, and is for all intents and purposes compatible with duck-playing devices, then guess what? It's a duck. "Disney DVD" is really nothing mre than a marketing term for all DVDs released by Disney (except the Pixar films, which carry the regular "DVD-Video" logo, yet come from the same distribution comapny, Buena Vista. Hmmm...). Also, I have listed Category:Disney DVD releases at categories for deletion. --FuriousFreddy 18:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete then redirect per FuriousFreddy. The standards for CD, CDV, DVD etc are well-established, and Disney is not breaking them. Radiant_>|< 22:10, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This article could be rewritten with no change it contect to one sentence. "Disney-DVD is the same as regular DVD." Tombride 23:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- marketspeak. Haikupoet 23:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Oh please - surely a 'Disney DVD' is just a DVD released by Disney. Easy, really. If they had a proprietary format, they would have had the good sense ot make sure it wasn't compatible with all DVD players so that they could charge us all for buying a new player just for their DVDs. Do not redirect, since Wikipedia is not a place for mysterious, unfounded conspiracy. In response to the comment by the author above - the burden of proof is on verifiability of the article, not on all the possible alternatives. The article needs to establish its meaning itself (either by revision or evidence in this VfD).-Splash 00:04, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Walt Disney Company. It's just Disney's branding for their DVDs. Sheesh. tregoweth 00:44, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pointless marketspeak. JamesBurns 04:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The fact that Disney's video discs bear a different logo than the standard DVD logo might be worth mentioning in some article in the proper context, but I will leave it to Easyas12c to do so. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment I think many voters have, however, missed the point. I think that Easyas12c is suggesting that if they do not bear the standard DVD logo, it may for a reason. Various companies have introduced copy-protected or otherwise restricted formats such as Flexplay and copy-protected CDs. The protection mechanism requires the format to differ from the standard, and therefore these formats are never in strict compliance with the standard. Standards organizations seem to be taking the principled (and realistic) stand that these products not really be reliably playable on all standard playback gear, and therefore may not bear the trademarked CD or DVD logos.

Exactly --Easyas12c 05:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Easyas12c is insinuating that consumers should regard"Disney DVDs" with suspicion, and that they may contain some kind of stealth DRM or copy protection or copy tracking mechanism which may be revealed at some later date. Since Disney is extremely assertive about IP protection, this is not a totally paranoid speculation.

I happen to agree that consumers should treat the absence of a standards logo as a red flag. Unfortunately, as far as I know any notion that Disney DVD's are not standard DVDs is speculation. The fact that Disney DVD's do not bear the DVD logo is a rather trivial fact, unless Easyas12c or someone else can cite credible sources that suggest that there's more to this than Disney corporate ego. In that case, the nonstandard logo becomes an important fact. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having an article on the subject could lead to further examination, thus having written down what we already know is not a bad idea. There is no reason why Disney could not have the standard DVD logo beside their own, other than the discs not really being DVDs. --Easyas12c 05:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Splash, and stick to my original Delete.

If there were such a thing as a Disney DVD that wasn't just an ordinary DVD made by Disney with their custom logo, then an article that actually explained this would be great. As it stands, the current article is just speculation that Disney DVDs are somehow different without offering any explanation how.

It is quite common for CDs and DVDs to not carry their standard logos without necessarily having DRM present. I have not seen any evidence to the contrary (on Google, or on Slashdot, where people have often mentioned creating backup DVDs for children to use without damaging the original) that a Disney DVD is anything other than the standard format described here. Novakreo 28 June 2005 07:06 (UTC)

I have also backupped my copy controled audio cds to my computer, and there still is DRM present, right? --Easyas12c 28 June 2005 07:26 (UTC)

Easyas12c, the fact that the Disney DVD's carry a substitute for the DVD logo is a bit of subtrivia. It might be appropriate to mention it briefly in the context of some Disney article. However, DO NOT include any personal speculation about the significance of the fact UNLESS you actually have a verifiable outside REFERENCE you can cite as to what that significance might be. You could quote speculation by someone notable but you can't put in your own speculation. Dpbsmith (talk) 28 June 2005 10:05 (UTC)

I was browsing DVDs at a store today and noticed that at least two Disney releases (The Pacifier and the Mickey/Donald/Goofy version of The Three Musketeers) carried the standard DVD Video logo. Also, if there were truly any special DRM voodoo, it seems that they would create similar names for their other labels—Touchstone, Miramax, etc. tregoweth June 29, 2005 02:06 (UTC)

Good point. I'm sure the DVD Forum does not require licensees to carry the logo. On the Diskey disks, it is probably just Disney ego. I'm not a Disney-watcher, but I could easily imagine their having policy of never allowing any non-Disney logo to appear on their stuff. Certainly, I could imagine them thinking that having a special Disney DVD logo enhances their brand more than the lack of the regular DVD hurts them. Whatever... just musing out loud here, of course. Dpbsmith (talk) 29 June 2005 09:55 (UTC)

• I changed my vote from keep to redirect. (overstroke my keep above) I still think it should be mentioned somewhere that Disney DVDs usually don't have the dvd logo on them (what ever is the correct expression to say that), but more as a sidenote. --Easyas12c 28 June 2005 15:15 (UTC)

• Delete outright, unless there is (for sure) some technical issue that needs to be mentioned. We already have The Walt Disney Company and DVD separately. Peter Grey 05:11, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Disney or its redirection- Whether or not Disney DVD is, in fact, a different form of recording, it is used only by Disney. The mystery as to whether it is a different media type is notable, and Disney's need to separate themselves from the rest of the media industry (*cough* separtists) is also a notable facet of the corporation. I think this article should fall under its own section on the Disney article. Gemini6Ice 29 June 2005 00:51 (UTC)

• Redirect not really notable, just a silly big-business practice. A spade is a spade and a DVD is a DVD, no matter what other words you put in front or behind it. Volatile 29 June 2005 03:54 (UTC)
• Delete, ratcruft. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:26 (UTC)
• Redirect Ashibaka (tock) 3 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.