Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Christopher Reeve Superman Collection

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 merge Alien Quadrilogy to Alien (franchise), delete rest. For future reference, it is easier on closing admins to list these separately. lifebaka++ 12:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Christopher Reeve Superman Collection

Wikipedia is not Amazon.com - while limited discussion of DVD releases of material is certainly relevant and welcome within the articles about a film series, a complete catalog-style explication of every detail is trivial information. Packaged releases generally are not independently notable in themselves and are only relevant in context to their source material. (One can imagine the consequences of allowing this to continue - across all media - unchecked.) Suggest Merge and extensive scaling down of trivial release details. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the useful content from Alien Quadrilogy ("Origins and production", "Reception") elsewhere, but delete the rest due to indiscriminate detail from the primary sources themselves. We're not Amazon.com, are we? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and Relist as inappropriate AFD. These articles are about completely different topics - one's a list, the rest are indivdiual articles on different productions. This is as bad as citing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as a rationale for supporting an article. No prejudice against renomination separately, although for the record I do plan to vote Keep for these as there is no prohibition regarding major releases of this type. If my suggestion to close and relist is not supported, then consider this comment to be a Keep all vote. 23skidoo (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It follows that if the individual articles are deemed unnotable, then the list would be equally so. (At least it does to me.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact the a package of DVDs is offered for sale could be mentioned in the articles of the individual movies, or in an article on "Superman movies." Northwestgnome (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close and relist individually. The articles listed here seem too distinct in their merits to bundle into one AFD. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The principal for listing here is identical across all articles. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware, but the articles are of greatly varying quality, so they should be listed individually to make for a less complicated decision. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be relevant were this a quality question; it is not - it is a notability one. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let me be clear. The quality of the articles, not only in terms of how well they are written, but also in terms of how well they demonstrate their notability...Alien Quadrilogy actually asserts notability via independent coverage. And asking whether a list is notable is not the same as asking whether specific elements are notable, so still, I say that it you would be better off listing these seperately. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent coverage (ie reliable sources) is not the sole criterion for the appropriateness of an article. No doubt several thousand DVD titles from the past 10+ years of the format have obtained similar levels of press coverage, and their number swells every week. Truly notable information is worthy of the film article; the rest is simply trivial information (in the context of an encyclopedia) which should remain on the online marketplace description pages. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything relevant from Alien Quadrilogy per Erik, delete the rest. Notability rests with the franchise, not individual dvd releases. These are all just catalogue-style listings of special features and such – this is not Amazon, as others have pointed out. The level of detail in Superman Ultimate Collector's Edition is obscene – it even tells the reader how to obtain replacement discs. Not what Wikipedia is here for. The existance of these articles sets a bad precedent, one that needs to be nipped in the bud. PC78 (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable/advertising. These are repacagings/rereleases of products and do not justify articles.--Bsnowball (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to Superman (film series), Alien (franchise), etc (to the extent that there's any useful information). if we wrote a new article every time a series of movies (or similar products) was repackaged, we'd end up with a host of fragmentary, useless articles. Repackaging is almost never notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:01, 6 August 2008 (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.