Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffy the Vampire Slayer DVDs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Canley (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buffy the Vampire Slayer DVDs

Buffy the Vampire Slayer DVDs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

No matter how popular the series is, individual DVD releases are NOT notable. This is already adequately covered in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)#main article. As this isn't a retail site, there is no need for disc by disc contents. Collectonian (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per Collectionion Mandsford (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:NNC says the contents of articles do not have to be notable, only the topic. If a sub-article is spunout due to size considerations, it follows that the contents of the sub-article will not necessarily be notable. Nowhere in WP:SUMMARY does it say that the sub-article has to establish notability apart from the parent article. To create a sub-article, the section just has to be be too long for the article it was in. It doesn't have to be too long and notable. --Pixelface (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:NN says that "notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles", there is no technical distinction between a so called sub-article and any other article. If article Y is spun out from article X then Y usually has to establish notability independently, if it can't it is likely that the original section was given undue weight in the article in the first place. Guest9999 (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Article series doesn't mention notability at all. Template:Main says "When Wikipedia articles become too large, subarticles are usually created." not "When Wikipedia articles become too large, subarticles are usually created for sections that are independently notable from the article topic." There are over 46,000 articles that link to {{main}} and I highly doubt their sub-articles all "establish" notability. --Pixelface (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's fair to say that a significant proportion of them will; all articles must have content that can be verified by citing reliable sources, the only real additional requirement of WP:NN is that some of those sources are independent of the subject. In most situations this is required anyway as means of verifying information. Most subjects which require significantly more than ~50kb of space have recieved the depth of coverage that ensure that any subarticles created are notable. Guest9999 (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The injunction does not apply here in any way shape or form. This is a completely unnecessary article, and I'd certainly hope that we aren't going to start going back on the current consensus that DVD articles are not notable (far bigger and more notable series have also had DVD articles either deleted or redirected). The far greater consensus is to delete these articles (but of course, we can't see those). All relevant DVD information is available in the main article. This sort of detail is nothing encouraged by the relevant MOS nor is it something the TV project encourages. Collectonian (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This article is about television episodes and it was created before the injunction was enacted, so I believe the injunction applies. No article on Wikipedia is necessary — all information on Wikipedia must be present elsewhere first, so articles simply repeat information that's already available. The DVD information in the main article is a list of dates, which is basically trivia. I see SpongeBob SquarePants DVDs was deleted, but that article was not about DVDs of the complete series. I don't like the idea of having articles for every DVD release of a television show, which is why I initially argued to merge this back into the main article, but I changed my mind after looking through Category:Television videos and DVDs. If a section like this gets too long, I don't see anything wrong with turning it into a sub-article. --Pixelface (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I see some mergeable bits in "Differences between versions" and "Collections", but I otherwise agree with nom. If no merge is performed as this time, I'd also go with a redirect. – sgeureka t•c 07:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Except for extremely minor trivia, this article is basically a reduced rehash of List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes. If there's anything here about episode content that isn't already in that previous article, it could probably be merged in. ◄Zahakiel► 21:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Of course the individual releases aren't generally individually notable. That's why we combine them in a single article. That we have it separate from the main article is a matter of convenience, considering the size and format. Sub articles are made not because the topics are notable separately in all cases, but to keep the length and format reasonable. One of the major remaining technical limitations of being not paper is the need to keep the length of articles usable for those with slow connections. One of the advantages of being not paper is that we can retain the detailed information at least for the really major series. It does not look over-fanlike to find this here; it looks properly comprehensive. People want realworld information--here it is.DGG (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Pixelface and DGG; this is just content for Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), a notable topic. Per WP:SPINOUT, there is no requirement that this article be judged in total isolation, and per Wikipedia:Summary_style#References.2C_citations_and_external_links, the citations and sources for the main topic apply here; primary sources may be used for the remainder. —Torc. (Talk.) 05:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG. Everyking (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2008 (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.