Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Simpsons DVD sets

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. --Keitei (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Simpsons DVD sets

Wikipedia is a not dvd shopping guide sites.--Alex11121 09:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an informational site about the simpsons dvd's and should not be deleted because it gives infor on released products.-MMSH987

• Save per nom.
• Keep. I cannot see any reason to delete published DVDs when we routinely keep CDs from non-vanity record labels. The information here is entirely valid information on Simpsons marketing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Very notable products. As of mid-2003, both the first two seasons were among the top 5 DVD box sets of alltime in terms of sales, having sold well more than a million copies (source). By the end of 2004, the sets had generated $200 million in sales (source), making them the equivalent of a blockbuster movie. In fact, to put that in movie terms, that's roughly the equal (in terms of domestic box office) of Terminator 2: Judgment Day or Back to the Future (source). We would never delete an article on a blockbuster movie or a platinum-selling CD, so why on earth would we delete one of the bestselling DVD series in history? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Starblind. Notability appears to outweigh other concerns for this article -Markeer 17:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is a DVD set which I am assuming must have had decent sales. How does it not qualify? What attribute would exclude it? As per the responses above, this set would be equivalent to a movie blockbister or a famous book. Alex11121 has made a very bad nomination here. This is a sign of being a "deletion hawk". Nlsanand 00:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That is an unnecessary and unworthy slur. WP:FAITH The nomination may be ill advised, but if you bother to check the contributor's edit history you will see that this nomination is their only edit ever. They are simply a novice who lacks experience. Cain Mosni 01:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I withdraw my comment, and apoloigise. Nlsanand 17:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is a very worthy article , for a very notable franchise. I see no reason why it should be deleted.Kingpomba 12:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with The Simpsons DVDs or else keep. Laïka 07:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP! Deleting it would be a suicidial move for The Simpsons articles on Wikipedia; it would be like removing a bridge that crosses a highway when traffic is driving over the bridge! Removing crucial articles (like the article in question) creates confusion for the readers of the encyclopedia, as the article contains information that helps the topic be understood; without the article, it is dificult to completely understand that topic. This article's deletion should not (and hopefully will not) occur.--M W Johnson 08:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think it is an excellent resource and extremely handy. Also - it is far too detailed to include in the main Simpsons article. I've come to use this site numerous times and don't know what I would do without it! :: ehmjay 00:56, 10 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.