Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Blue's Clues home video 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 delete. Setting aside the WP:TNT-inspired deletion nomination, the only policy based argument here was WP:NLIST, i.e. that this list does not meet the criteria for stand-alone lists.  So Why  13:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Blue's Clues home video releases

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is a vandal magnet. It is an implausibly large and unverified list of alleged home video releases for the TV show Blues Clues which seems to exist solely so that hoaxers can fiddle the dates and add, remove or change items without references to provide any external corroboration. Now, obviously I accept that there have been home video releases for this TV show and I have no objection to any of the items here that can be proven real being listed somewhere (with references). Even so, I don't think that this deserves its own article. Even if the list of genuine video releases is as long as claimed here (which I doubt) it can be accommodated in the main article. It is not like any of these video releases is notable in its own right. To this end, I tried redirecting this title back to the main article but it has not stuck. I have tried to start a discussion on the article's talk page but it seems that there is nothing doing.

I think it is time to admit that there is no hope for this ever to be anything other than a vandals' playground and give up on it. As I see it, the alternative is copying everything on this subject out of IMDB, painstakingly checking that it is all genuine there and then spending the rest ofour short lives defending it from those who (for reasons that make no sense to me) want to mess it up. That seems like a lot of unnecessary work when we could just link to IMDB's own lists (or another good source) and have done with it. DanielRigal (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The article was vandalized by the IPs. We are trying to revert their unsourced edits but the IPs won't stop. 2607:FEA8:A29F:FDEE:80D0:40F:540A:5DCD (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's suitable for a stand alone list or within the main article. If vandalism is really that much of an issue, you should request page protection. SL93 (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What would we be protecting? Why fossilise an article that could be anywhere between 10% and 90% fake in its protected state? If there was ever a good, verifiable version of this article worthy of protection which we could revert to then I would agree with you 100% but there isn't. That is why I suggest we just give up on this. Articles like this are a discredit to Wikipedia. We know that they are bad but clearly we don't have the time or the will to research such minor subjects in the detail required to make them good so they stay, forever unverified, as the sole preserve of the hoaxers and vandals. This reinforces the impression that we are soft on hoaxes, inaccuracies and low level disruption and so the hoaxers will be encouraged and will persist. It is not like I have not tried to encourage good editors to work on this. I have added it to projects and put suggestions on the talk page. It hasn't done any good. It is nothing but a rod for our own backs. Its existence has a small knock on effect on the whole project. Small, but detrimental. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The lack of interest in !voting here is understandable. I think this illustrates why articles such as this are problematic. It is a sub-article of a subject that is itself pretty obscure. It will attract fan writing, and also vandalism by those who think it is funny to get one over on the fans and on Wikipedia, but very little attention from experienced editors who can ensure that the content is correct and validly referenced. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Can't see how this article could pass WP:LISTN. It is not necessary nor important to have a list of every single release on VHS/DVD of a particular show, particular when it is difficult to verify them (other than links to Amazon - online shopping sites) Ajf773 (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: There should be a list of Blue's CLues VHS/DVD. 2607:FEA8:A29F:FDEE:E593:6947:B87C:63F8 (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Multiple !voting by 2607:fea8:a29f:fdee::/64 ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why should there be a list? Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Ajf773 (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. These are relevant and needs to be kept. 2607:FEA8:A29F:FDEE:3C69:A23E:115C:B328 (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC) Multiple !voting by 2607:fea8:a29f:fdee::/64 ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What makes them relevant and needed to be kept? Please explain in more detail. Ajf773 (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Isn't there a Blue's Clues Wikia site? KMF (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't give a crap about that wiki. 2607:FEA8:A29F:FDEE:E593:6947:B87C:63F8 (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Explain why we really need the page instead of using vulgar language. At a good fath editor. 2600:1:F18E:779D:603E:D9C:3AA0:8A77 (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is unverifiable and needless. I don't see the point of having it nor any video list article. Wikipedia after all is not a list of videos site. 2600:1:F18E:779D:3138:A14F:E071:111B (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How about the list of Dora videos. There are many list of videos. 2607:FEA8:A29F:FDEE:E593:6947:B87C:63F8 (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It certainly isn't great but at least it has better referencing that this does. I'm going to tag the equivalent Dora article as needing improvement but it doesn't seem like it needs deleting like this does. Besides, we have a policy WP:OTHERCRAP which means that even if that was literally the worst thing on Wikipedia (which it isn't) it still wouldn't help to justify this article, which is what we are talking about here. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. The page is so obviously useless that, if it does serve as a honeypot for vandals, that may be a reason to keep the article. (otherwise, it's an obvious delete) Power~enwiki (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: People don't even know what is deleting a page. Similar to the list of Dora videos and others, it is useful to have a list. 2607:FEA8:A29F:FDEE:E593:6947:B87C:63F8 (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Multiple !voting by 2607:fea8:a29f:fdee::/64 ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not care about what is "useful". What it wants is "verifiable" info. And in any case, there is nothing useful about an article whose only purpose is to list videos. And I don't get the point of the list of Dora videos. Seems more to do with fandom than an encyclopeida. 2600:1:F18E:779D:603E:D9C:3AA0:8A77 (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The anonymous editor 2607:FEA8:A29F:FDEE:E593:6947:B87C:63F8 has tried to place two votes, I have omitted the second of those two. There also seems to be a high amount of activity from unregs in this discussion. I propose we disregard their comments as it may construct an unbiased AfD debate. Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: At least this page should be protected instead of being deleted. Conor Dooley (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See Daniel's words above []. 2600:1:F18E:779D:2961:E106:9A9D:7391 (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Conor Dooley has been suspensed indefinitely for sock-puppetry. I think it's wise to disregard their vote for the purposes of obtaining an unbiased consensus. Ajf773 (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:LISTN. While I suspect the information in the list is likely verifiable to catalogues along the lines of the Amazon listings already cited there don't seem to be any available sources which discuss Blue's Clues home video releases as a group. Most of the above arguments (from both sides) are IMO rather dodgy.  Hut 8.5  06:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I wholeheartedly agree with DanielRigal, this is just a black eye article. Ifnord (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - and this article could serve as a great example of WP:ISNOT.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:59, 18 May 2017 (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.