Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas and Friends video releases

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. Strong arguments on both sides. On the one hand it is not an indiscriminate list being properly and systematically organised. OTOH it really could do with textual information - production details etc. TerriersFan 22:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas and Friends video releases

This is listcruft. Wikipedia is not a directory or indiscriminate collections of information. It is just a list of releases of videos, songs or interstitial segements, it doesn't even describe the episodes or shows. i said 00:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete -- More catalog lists associated with the Thomas franchise. These Thomas fans seem to think Wikipedia is a webspace provider to add every single non-notable detail about the ranges. There's a Thomas Wiki apparently, add it there. Saikokira 00:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete list cruft, wikipedia is not the place to list everything about a show. Oysterguitarist 02:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this is important information to Thomas and Friends but is too long to include in the article itself. Just because something is long doesn't make it cruft. -Drdisque 08:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It's cruft because a list of releases is not enyclopedic, and most people will not care, only people who are highly devoted to the franchise will. i said 23:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I wish I'd stop seeing the word encyclopedic being misused so often on wikipedia, did you know that half the results on google for encyclopedic are to do with wikipedia (indicates the extent of the problem)? Anyway, getting back on track.... encyclopedic is defined as "comprehensive" also "broad in scope or content". If anything, this seems to be the opposite of what you were trying to say. Because you were wishing to instead narrow down the scope and content of the encyclopedia, making it less comprehensive. Mathmo Talk 21:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Are the pictures copyright vio? Speciate 09:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
They're all fair use, but they only have the boilerplate rationale, not the image-specific one that they should. In addition, I dont think they qualify under fair use in just a list of releases, with no critical context. i said 14:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete'. WP is not a directory nor a TV guide. Nabla 21:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Drdisque. --xDanielxTalk 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There seems to be plenty of lists of episodes of other TV shows, like South Park, Star Trek, etc. (indeed, several have an article per episode), so keep. Stifle (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The crucial difference is that those have summaries, production information, guest stars etc. (at least they should) and are lists of the actual episodes. This is just a list of releases of episodes. i said 21:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Have a look at this before floating that "other people do it too!" argument. --Calton | Talk 12:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm already well aware of that page; I'm also aware that it is a personal essay, and in no way a policy or guideline. --musicpvm 18:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A mere list of things for sale. WP is not a directory. --Calton | Talk 12:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's just a list for list sake, the only people who would be intrested in in this (or would find any use of it since thier are no episode summaries just titles) are hardcore Thomas fans, who would probobly be better served by using another website. Deathawk 21:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. A suitable summary of a highly notable series. Is in no way indiscriminate or trivial. Is not a directory of things for sale, does not link or hint at purchasing information, but incorporates a history as is quite proper. Is not a TV guide; has no correspondence to any current or future transmission. Few people will be interested in such depth of information on a childrens topic, but certainly some will. WP:NOTPAPER. The addition or linking of commentary would be desirable. --SmokeyJoe 10:17, 13 August 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.
Languages