Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stargate Atlantis DVD (second nomination)

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 keep or merge. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate Atlantis DVD

This article was previously deleted at AfD. A DRV consensus narrowly overturned that deletion, essentially on a plea of consistency, given that Stargate SG-1 DVD was kept. This matter is submitted to AfD for fresh consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Plenty can be said and expanded upon for these. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete DVDcruft. Bwithh 14:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I expect it can be expanded, but I don't know for sure. I'll change to full keep if someone can show some real information that can be added, similar to the info in the SG-1 version. --Tango 15:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As long as it doesn't go into the contents of said DVD's it can be informative, encyclopedic and contain content that wouldn't be appropriate for the main article. PPGMD 15:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

eh? wouldn't be much left if the content is ruled out completely. Bwithh 17:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep or Merge It provides for good Summary Style from the main articles. A merge could be considered between the SG-1 DVD and Atlantis DVD which might satisfy. Morphh ^(talk) 16:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, don't let Wikipedia turn into a DVD catalog. Please? Recury 16:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure "please" will work at this stage. What's needed is an administration-directed purge campaign. Bwithh 17:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

8(. Recury 17:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, this is not an encyclopedia article. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Stargate Atlantis. However, if it was expanded I would probably vote to "Keep". --Bark 17:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  Keep. The entries of the first Stargate DVD being the Atlantis pilot, Blu-ray plans, the Canadian foul-up, and switching distributers is insightful. They won me over. --Bark 17:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOT an Amazon listing. Deletion does not preclude an actual encyclopaedia article being written in its place if anyone wants to 'expand' it (which is very different from saying that someone else should expand it). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and/or Merge, if there is a consesus that there is not enough info, we should merge it with the Stargate SG-1 DVD until such time that enough content exists for it to have its on page... -Xornok 21:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  I don't think that would be a good merge, even without much prose, they are both quite long pages. There would be too many tables if they were merged. --Tango 22:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  the alternate would be to delete them then... -Xornok 23:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. Precedent is that this article should be kept. So far, there is no community consensus that articles like this should not exist. If such a guideline is proposed, or perhaps as an addition to WP:NOT, such a change could be discussed. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 00:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh, like the precedent that got it deleted before? Recury 01:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • But the other article got kept. Its not a precedent if it only applies in one anecdotal case. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That (many) other articles like this exist isn't precedent either. That just means people really like creating them, not that there is consensus that they should be in Wikipedia. Recury 13:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article recently gave me useful information. I was planning to buy DVDs and this was the first reliable place on the web which gave release dates. This article is verifiable, useful, and more information on the topic will become avalible. That means that as more seasons and volumes are released, (which will happen), more information will expand this article. This article is useful, and the agurment that it is tiny, although valid, will not be gieven some time. Tobyk777 02:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This article recently gave me useful information. That's MGM's job, not Wikipedia's. --Calton | Talk 06:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Good lord, what is the POINT of this fancruft? Two sentences -- at most -- in the Stargate Atlantis would cover this. All that can be done here is to add padding about trivial (and yes, crufty) details about this bonus feature and that cover art and the other commentary. --Calton | Talk 06:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Fancruft as a word should be banned from every Wikipedian's vocabulary. There is no rule anywhere in Wikipedia about "fancruft", and moreover, people simply use it as a term for things they don't like. I've seen it used to describe everything from Naruto articles to information about the Salvation Army. An article shouldn't exist if it violates guidelines such as WP:NOT or WP:V, not if a few Wikipedians declare it "cruft," especially as "cruft" is an entirely subjective term. At least if you're going to call something cruft, back it up with actual guidelines to justify your decision. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Totaly agree I have been saying the same thing for a long time. Fanrfut seems to have become a reason to justify the removal of anything. It's just a junky piece of slang, made up for wikipedia which is misused. There is no policy anywhere about it. Delete as fanfut is the same thing as Delete as boring or Delete because I don't like it." It's nonsense and for some reason everyone go alontg with it and uses it. Adding to the above, It's not just in fiction either. Ive seen people calling articles about the goverment cruft because it was an obscure branch. Think of a better reason people. Cruft is nonsense. All this cruft junk is probably the worst thing about wikipedia. Tobyk777 04:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere. As a possibility, merge it to the other DVD set and then rename the merged article to "Stargate DVD sets" SchmuckyTheCat 06:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is an info source for many people. Knowing where and when DVD's are released is a valuable piece of info for some. EnsRedShirt 08:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Okay I added a poorley written, but well sourced paragraph at the top of the page called DVD History. It explains a few of the things that are special about the DVD's, including the first SONY stargate DVD release, The Canadian first season Disc problems, and the delay of the season two box set because of the switch to Fox.EnsRedShirt 10:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: This is completely factual, referenced, not entirely list-like (has other information at the top, like the SG-1 article) and noteworthy: this isn't just for the sake of it, Stargate DVDs are collectors items due to their volumised releases, with ones bought at release worth more. A valid article in every sense, although needs expanding (not a reason for deletion).--Alfakim-- talk 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There will be at least 4 DVD releases so there will be enough information, plus the varying regions make it so that the information is interesting. Konman72 19:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see much difference between having articles about DVDs versus articles about movies or tv shows. Dugwiki 23:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or delete The article, as it is now, or even if it expands like Stargate SG-1 DVD, is a bad article. Good info, but it needs context. Having a certain amount of info doesn't make something more or less notable as a topic. -- Ned Scott 00:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge or weak keep Some parts, like the DVD history, should definitely be kept somewhere. -- Ned Scott 07:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep/Merge, useful content that we should store somewhere. bbx 02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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.