Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group

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 DELETE but with no actual material being lost, and recast as a redirect to Columbia Pictures. Practically every commentor had a different solution, so there was no consensus, exactly. During the course of the discussion material was merged, so that Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group and Columbia Pictures are now identical, except for one short paragraph. During most of the discussion, Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group was just a stub. Anyway, it's apparant that, absent more significant editing, the material in either Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group or Columbia Pictures be deleted and the page made a redirect to the other. I don't believe that at this point merging the extensive material in these twin articles into Sony Pictures Entertainment would be a either a good idea or a good reading of what the commentors wanted. Anyway, to sort this all out, I chose to make Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group a redirect to Columbia Pictures rather than vice versa because (1) a user is more likey to type "Columbia Pictures" rather than "Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group" I suppose, and (2) Columbia Pictures is much the older entity and a part of Hollywood history. Herostratus 06:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group

Needless page, should be merged into another article (like Sony Pictures) or just deleted. Renosecond 21:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. But it is a subsidiary/division. It says so in the article. If you look at the Sony Pictures Entertainment article, it shows that it is a division and explains more about the division than the article could, it's just filler and redundant. Renosecond 21:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. For Pete's sake; it's one sentence and it's not likely to get any longer. --FuriousFreddy 22:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - already covered in more detail in Sony Pictures. I've copied over the miniscule amount of additional information in this article. Yomanganitalk 23:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. If it's covered in the Sony article, this title should point there to help readers find the content. - Mgm|(talk) 09:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Mergefrom Columbia Pictures and TriStar Pictures. Inappropriate to merge this stub into Sony Pictures, as the info is already there and the structure is all different. Columbia is a major studio with a long history, and the article should reflect the fact that the modern TriStar was acquired and merged into it. Ohconfucius 07:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've just merged them per my suggestion above. See what you think..... There wasn't that much text to be banged together. However, I've left the list of notable films separate for now, one following the other. I think it is a total nightmare -it seems to be a hotch potch collection of every editor's favourite Columbia and TriStar film. In short, far too many movies that it clutters up the page. I would suggest applying some sort of box office gross criteria (say over $100 million) and go through that list, then merging them properly (leaving only the blockbusters). Ohconfucius 09:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The page as of now, I'm not sure if it would work, I liked putting the info on the Sony Pictures page myself. For the notable films, I have tried to trim those lists and I'll figure something out to trim them up, I took out redlinked films and such, I'll work on those possibly a little later, all studios have the same problem. Renosecond 19:41, 1 September 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.