Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney/DreamWorks feud

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. this is all OR so we dont keep it but I'm sure a NPOV neutrally sourced article at a more carefully worded location would be in order

Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Disney/DreamWorks feud

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

Unreferenced, potentially contentious WP:OR, the content of which is best covered under their respective articles. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication that this is anything but original research of a single point of view, zero references RadioFan (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very interesting, but completely OR. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I agree, very interesting, but the article fails
notable enough for its own article. Raa G gio (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information in the article doesn't assert how it's a feud? I find it more of a coincidence. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!_{I didn't do it!} 23:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]}

But there is more to all this coincidence than just a bunch of creative types who have happened upon the same subject at the same time :-)--Sodabottle (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The media tend to sensationalize, marginalize, and blow things out of proportion. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!_{I didn't do it!} 14:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]}

Keep - Their rivalry has got a lot of coverage (use rivalry instead of feud for searching) - E online, Fox Business, CNN, New York Times, Forbes, Newyorker, [1] [2] etc. Usually the articles tend to describe what goes on between disney and dreamworks as "rivalry", "war", "battle" or "competition". A good article can be written from the existing coverage - title needs to be changed from feud to rivalry, unsourced speculation removed etc but other than that, this is a valid subject that has been covered in media ever since the Antz Vs A Bugs life episode.--Sodabottle (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per
talk) 12:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I'm not sure the topic is inherently going to be original research, but what's there now certainly is. Wow, is that bad stuff. Powers ^T 19:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of this article's information is mentioned on
The Wild, and yes I agree with the fact that it is original research. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - original research, no sources, and plenty of speculation. In addition, there is a difference between a competitive rivalry and an actual feud between two organizations in competition with each other. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced sensationalized original research. Deconstructhis (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and sensationalism. AniMate 03:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Sodabottle above. It's a good subject and interesting. Caden ^cool 03:33, 15 April 2010 (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.