Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost DVD releases

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost DVD releases

Lost DVD releases (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Content unsuitable for an encyclopedia Andres rojas22 16:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, could you be a bit more specific? It looks fine to me and it seems notable enough. Tim.bounceback^{(talk | contribs | ubxen)} 16:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not about the quality of the article,its the quality of the subject,i mean that the subject of the article goes beyond what is the fair covering of a tv serie in wikipedia:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox,the article about the serie is acceptable but creating an article about the series edition and comercializing is spaming.This kind of information belongs to Amazon.com or IMDB not Wikipedia--Andres rojas22 16:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't look like a soapbox to me. One of the links you mentioned has a specific list listing things that Wikipedia is not. Articles with subjects about DVDs are not on there, and, anyway, people are hardly going to go around deleting every article about a DVD they come across. "Lost", from what I have heard (I don't watch TV), is a popular TV series, and I don't see why the article related to the DVD sets should be deleted. Tim.bounceback^{(talk | contribs | ubxen)} 18:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep due to vagueness of the nominator's argument. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 16:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Lost (TV series). Artw 16:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep I don't see how ths s indiscriminate / soapboxing. Anyways precedent exists for DVD releases to have articles mikm 16:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It isnt relevant to Wikipedia deal with merchandise and comercializing of a product,because as an encyclopedia and not a database of editions on distribution it is concerned whit the product itself and not its edtions.Like i said before that information is for online data bases like amazon,imdb...--Andres rojas22 17:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia is not spamming the DVD releases. What the article does is acknowledge that the DVDs exist and describe them. I don't see how that's any different / more "commercializing" than articles on albums or any other product you can buy. The article doesn't say anywhere that "you should buy this" or "here's where you can buy it". THAT is spam and should be edited or removed. DVD releases for a popular TV show are notable and encyclopediac. mikm 17:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Then they should describe them on their respective season article rather than indepently.Season 1 DVD on the article of Season 1,and so on.A lost DVD isnt anithing by its own merit,its merit comes from the fact that its a DVD of the Lost series,therefore its not important separated from lost,by that logic it should(minimum)be merged--Andres rojas22 17:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Lost (TV series). It seems to be notable, as Lost itself is notable, but not quite notable enough for its own article. Maybe it could be moved to List of Lost DVD releases and be formated like a list. In that case, Lost (TV series) should link to it. Chaffers ^(talk)/_{(contributions)} 17:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: This article cannot be merged with Lost (TV series). As a featured article, it must be "focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - whilst the content may not be all that notable, we do have precedents, and in my opinion it's better the content remain here, than cluttering up the already long main article on Lost. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - with no merge. This is a reasonable content fork from the main Lost article, which is already long and likely to get longer. Otto4711 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - a page for Lost's DVD releases is fine. Bettyfizzw 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I see no benefit to deletion/merge.. valid article. Matthew 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. -- Wikipedical 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly notable, no need to merge, and will only expand. - Denny 17:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Same arguments as those before me: it's notable and is the same as the countless articles on individual music albums. Darry2385 21:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To counter that outrageous statement that its the same as a music album i'll say:a music album is art,because the word album does not refer to CD but to a collection of songs put together like a montage in a film.While this articles about DVD series releases doesn't refer to an artistic object wich would make a valid article,but to a products marketing.Besides when have you seen something like that in an encyclopedia--Andres rojas22 23:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The only one I see making outrageous statements is you ("Content unsuitable for an encyclop[a]edia"). You should see WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

One could consider the collection of episodes on the DVDs an artistic collection. The writers of the episodes most likely consider them a form of art. Re: "when have you seen something like that in an encyclopedia", when have you seen a CD in an encyclopedia? Furthermore, the representation of albums here could just as easily be considered marketing. Most album entries contain track listings, genre, artist, release date, label, and other facts that could be considered "trivia". I see the same information on the Lost DVD Releases entry. Darry2385 00:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

But neither it is UrbanDictionary,it doesn't mean anithing can be an article.To quote an user above this is "unnecessary detail"--Andres rojas22 00:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care for "Urban Dictionary", to quote my self.. "valid aticle". Matthew 00:01, 5 April 2007 (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.